The Supreme Court Judgment will inspire more people to campaign for LGBT+ rights

Following the horrendous and mortifyingly scary Supreme Court judgment on the Equality Act, after a couple of days to breathe, look after and protect our trans and non-binary friends and colleagues, we are starting to talk to various colleagues to start a plan to challenge this outrageous decision. 

This judgment has not only created more inconsistency, confusion, and downright removal of  hard won trans rights but has landed several unintended consequences not only to the lives of trans men in particular, but actually to other key legislation where companies could with this judgment circumvent laws on equal pay for example. 

As we sit on the shoulders of giants, who have paved way for our own liberty, we have to do the same for generations to come and this is an opportunity not only to strike through the ridiculous Supreme Court  judgment removing trans women’s rights to be recognised as a women in all areas of life, but to legislate for third gender (non binary and intersex protections) formally and to eliminate any incongruous definitions between the Gender Recognition Act, and the Equality Act – essentially tidying up all the wording whilst not using any biological or gender critical terminology, 

As we all know, the passing of the excellent policy paper “Free to be who you are” from our equality spokesperson Christine Jardine at our recent Harrogate conference  gives us the means to challenge the Government, insist on clear guidance for trans and non binary people and to revise our laws to be trans and non-binary inclusive. 

As many Lib Dem Voice readers, will know – as an openly non binary person, this week has been incredibly stressful and sad, seeing friends and colleagues really suffer from the judgment on Wednesday. 

I understand why the party leadership has to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision, but it doesn’t have to endorse or accept it and be contrary to the party policy we passed so recently. I also acknowledge that we have exceptionally important local elections in two weeks, and we want to do well, but from LGBT+ Lib Dems perspective, as one of their Honorary Vice Presidents we need to see the party hierarchy recognise the anxiety and stress that this decision has had on its members and on LGBT+ folks who should be among our most natural supporters.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 2 Comments
Advert

Observations of an ex pat – MAGA vs the Liberal Elite

Cometh the hour. Cometh the university. To be more specific, that bastion of American liberalism—Harvard.

The defeated Democratic Party is worse than useless. The lawyers are frightened of threatened retribution. The media are curbing their criticisms in face of mounting law suits. The courts are hard at work, but they take time and the ultimate legal arbiter — the Supreme Court — has a decided conservative bent.

However, Trump may have met his match in Harvard University. In America money talks. Harvard has money. A $53.2 billion endowment fund. This money is a shield against all the arrows — mainly financial — that Trump is raining down on them.

The reason for the attacks on Harvard and other Ivy League universities is alleged anti-Semitism on campus.In reality it is because Harvard—and most of the other American universities are citadels of open-minded, free-thinking, liberalism of the sort that has made America great. It represents everything that the current president opposes. As Trump publicly said: “I think Harvard is a disgrace”

The liberal elite of academia is a top target. If Trump can crush liberalism and force open the university doors to MAGA thinking then he will have changed America for generations. Harvard is America’s top university. If he can succeed there the others will follow.

To that end, Trump’s administration has written to the university with a list of demands to be met with the implied threat of further action if they are not. They include subjecting the university to government oversight of Harvard’s admission and hiring policies. The university must provide personal details of all foreign students, monitor their activities and report on those activities to a federal authority. Anything that smacks of DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) programs must end along with any criticism of Israel which the Trump Administration has conflated with anti-Semitism.

And finally, Harvard University must agree to the government approving the university curriculum to ensure that faculty are promoting “American values.” Exactly who decides what those values are is needlessly left unspoken.

Harvard–in polite legal terms– has refused to comply.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 8 Comments

Christine Jardine requests meeting with Minister over LGBTQ+ rights

Official portrait of Christine Jardine @HouseofCommons/Roger HarrisLib Dem Women and Equalities Spokesperson Christine Jardine has written to Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson to ask for an urgent meeting to address the implications for the LGBTQ+ community in the wake of this week’s Supreme Court judgement.

On social media, Christine said:

I am increasingly disappointed that the concerns of the #LGBTQ+ community over what the Supreme Court judgement means for them are not yet being addressed. I have written to the Government asking them to make clear how trans and non binary rights will be protected.

In her letter, she asks that before any decisions are made, trans and non binary people are fully comsulted. She said:

I therefore urge your government to bring forward urgent guidance on how existing legislation will protect those rights, whether fresh legislation is envisaged and how the ruling’s practical implications will be resolved.

This must include significant steps to provide trans and non-binary people with the reassurance they deserve. To do this, the guidance must ensure rights that trans people have freely used for decades are not overturned.

These steps should also include open consultation with trans and non-binary communities, to better understand the ruling’s impact and whether any further legislative or policy change is needed to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.

The full text of her letter is below.

Posted in News | Tagged , and | 3 Comments

We have just entered a civil rights emergency

As the shockwave of Wednesday’s bombshell Supreme Court decision has landed, we are now seeing the rapid erosion of some civil liberties in the UK. Although the court’s decision itself ruled on a fairly narrow part of Equalities Law, we are now seeing huge confusion as people pore over the full implications of the ruling and some seem to capitalise to restrict the rights of trans people, without regard of the side effects on the wider LGBT community, or women.

We have now seen initial responses from people like the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Baroness Falkner, which appear to be taking a worst case interpretation of the ruling which does nothing but erode hard fought rights for trans people, claiming that we should be excluded from spaces we have existed in without issue for decades.

The British Transport Police have been fast off the mark to change their policies regarding strip searching of trans people. Male police officers can now strip search women if they believe they are trans (regardless of what genitalia that person might actually have). As a councillor I have seen officers in my council take weeks at the fastest to fully evaluate the impact of changes like this before introducing them, so find it impossible to believe that this policy has been introduced as a result of careful consideration of the implication of the ruling given the speed at which it has been done. It is clear that systemic transphobia remains embedded high in many public institutions, which are now rushing to bring in policies which harm vulnerable trans women.

I have no doubt that we will see more transphobic policies introduced under the guise of this ruling, rather than as a result of any careful consideration of the implication of it. These policies will hurt not only trans people, but be harmful for society in general as an erosion of liberty. Women in particular will be hurt by these decisions, shamefully championed by transphobic hate groups which masquerade as “women’s rights” campaigners, when inevitably authorities may make a judgement about their sex which turns out to be wrong. This has happened in the US through other trans-exclusionary definitions of women in bathroom bans. Legal recourse after the fact for redress is no compensation, and will remain open only to those with the pockets to fund it.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 8 Comments

The Pathway to Peace for Israel and Palestine: the West Bank is Critical Too

While the devastation of Gaza dominates the headlines, Israeli settlers have been ramping up  violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and stealing ever more of their land. The illegal settlement project has long been recognised as undermining the viability of a Palestinian state and as an impediment to peace. Lib Dem MPs have rightly spoken out in favour not just of a lasting ceasefire but of a sustainable way out of this crisis for both peoples. But as we try to find a way to a better future, we need to take another look at what is happening in the West Bank right now.

On the night of Saturday 29 March this year, around 140 Israeli soldiers and settlers raided the Masafer Yatta Village of Jinba in the West Bank. Windows were smashed, homes ransacked, and a school and health clinic damaged. This followed an earlier attack in which settlers beat six residents with batons, hospitalising five – including a 15-year-old boy – before soldiers arrived and arrested 22 villagers accused of attacking a settler Shepherd.

Just days earlier, Palestinian film director Hamdan Ballal was attacked by armed settlers in his village, Susya, also in Masafer Yatta. Ballal was surrounded and beaten outside his home, sustaining injuries to his head and stomach. Israeli authorities subsequently arrested Ballal and two other Palestinians, detaining them in a military facility overnight. The attack came mere weeks after Ballal was presented with an Oscar for his film ‘No Other Land,’ a documentary depicting just such state-backed settler violence.

These attacks are not isolated incidents, nor the actions of ‘bad apples’. They are part of an entrenched strategy to dispossess, displace and oppress Palestinian communities and, in so doing, accelerate Israeli settlement expansion across the illegally occupied West Bank. Since 1967, over 700,000 Israelis have transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced through a combination of discriminatory policies and military and settler violence. Home demolitions, movement restrictions, land confiscation and punitive residency revocations all function within a system Amnesty carefully but justifiably characterises as apartheid. Violence, harassment, land theft and destruction of property by settlers – often carried out with support and assistance from Israeli authorities – adds to the pressure.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 8 Comments

Edinburgh book launch – all invited

Following on from the events at the National Liberal Club and at the party’s Harrogate Spring Conference, the John Stuart Mill Institute is completing its trio of book launches at the Scottish Liberal Club, 4 Clifton Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 5DR, at 7.30pm, Friday, 25th April. All colleagues are warmly welcome.

The Institute has sponsored the book “When We Speak of Freedom – Radical Liberalism in an Age of Crisis” as the definitive current publication on Liberal philosophy and values. The twenty chapter writers include a number of respected politicians, academics and specialists, including Sir Vince Cable, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor David Howarth and Bob Marshall-Andrews KC. The editors are two young academics, Paul Hindley and Ben Wood, who will be happy to answer any questions you may have – contact details are below.

Of particular importance to the Scottish media launch is the chapter on “Federalism from a Scottish Perspective” by Ross Finnie, former MSP and, at Holyrood, ex-Minister for Rural Development, 1999 to 2007. Previous to his time in the Scottish parliament he was a Councillor for twenty-two years. Ross will be present at the media launch.

Another leading Scottish Liberal Democrat, Denis Robertson Sullivan, has contributed a chapter on “Ending the UK Housing Crisis”. Denis is a former Treasurer of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. He was the Chair of Scotland Shelter and the Vice-Chair of Shelter UK.

If you would like more information about the John Stuart Mill Institute please consult our website which is www.jsmi.org.uk or get in touch with me: Michael Meadowcroft, JSMI Trustee, [email protected].

Posted in News | Tagged and | Leave a comment

Yes, Liberals can and should be proud to be British

I feel compelled to begin this article with a confession of jealousy. Since joining the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I’ve met many wonderful people who can say that they are lifelong liberals. I always wince with envy when I hear it.

As I’ve told those who have asked, I was a member of the Scottish Conservatives for some years, including a brief stint working in their press office in Holyrood. I’m not ashamed of that per se, and nobody in the party has even hinted that I should be, but facts are facts.

Especially given the right-ward march of the Scottish Tories in recent years, I remain one of our most repentant sinners, comforted by the fact that the Tories left me every bit as much as I left them.

If I cannot carry the card of the from the cradle liberal, I can at least offer to be of use. With the foothills of the 2026 Holyrood elections in view, many liberal-adjacent Tories will be looking for a new home, one that combines fiscal responsibility with their open, tolerant, pre-Boris social views.

For an excellent rendition of this point, I highly recommend watching the speech our new MSP, Jamie Greene, gave at our conference in Inverness. Jamie spoke with candour, grace, humour, and clarity on this subject. He has walked the walk and very much has the talk to go with it.

Those expecting this article to be a shopping list of things that Liberal Democrats should abandon will be disappointed. Instead, I mean to encourage something that is going very well, especially with disillusioned Tory voters in mind. Our appeal to patriotism.

There is much to like so far. Ed Davey has been leading the effort, encouraging us to buy British goods where possible and taking a strong line on Russian aggression and the destructive nature of the Trump administration’s disastrous, miserly, and self-defeating tariffs.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 8 Comments

Official Lib Dem reaction to today’s Supreme Court judgement

It’s been a tough day for trans and non binary people and for those who love them. The Judgement handed down by the Supreme Court on the definition of a woman throughout the Equality Act 2010 has understandably caused significant anxiety about what this could mean for the rights of trans people.

For me there seems to be an inherent contradiction between

The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

and

the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic

Posted in News | Tagged | 23 Comments

Opportunities in our appeals and disciplinary processes

This week vacancies have been advertised for two important roles in the Party.

Disciplinary Sub Group

The Disciplinary Sub Group ” is responsible for ensuring the independence, efficiency and effectiveness of the Complaints Procedure. As part of this it will monitor, review and amend the procedure and relevant guidance on an ongoing basis and support Party staff in their roles within the Complaints Procedure. The DSG is not involved in the handling of individual complaints.”

Applications are sought from party members who can:

demonstrate their affinity with the values of the party, as well as an understanding of its structures and the context within which the party’s internal processes operate.

A commitment to the Liberal Democrats is required but evidence of substantial prior involvement is not and induction and training will be available. The Party is keen to encourage new talent.

In making its appointments, the Board will take into account:

  • Specialist skills, knowledge and experience including in one of more of creating and delivering training; data recording and/or case management systems;, law, disciplinary matters or HR; drafting policies and procedures, including ensuring they embed best practice on diversity and inclusion; and specialist knowledge and/or training in addressing certain types of complaint (e.g. sexual impropriety cases, protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, religious representation or social media management);

  • All aspects of diversity, and the need to reflect the representation from all three State Parties;

  • Previous experience with the Complaints’ Procedure, or with similar procedures inside or outside of the party; and

  • The need for DSG members to, and to be seen to, exercise objective and impartial judgement in assessing the efficacy of the procedure.

The closing date for applications is 25 April 2025. Full details of how to apply are here.

Federal Appeals Panel

Posted in News | Tagged and | Leave a comment

Politics must change

Now that the United States has abdicated from its position of leader and protector of the “free world” politicians of all parties are in agreement that ”the world has changed” and we must change with it.  I believe that, looking backwards for half a century or so rather than just from  the accession President Trump, and forward for another fifty years rather than to the next election, we need a fundamental shift in the political debate in at least the following  areas.

Physical Standard of Living

For a least a century and a half there has been an assumption that each generation should enjoy a better material standard of living  their parents.  In our developed economies we must abandon his idea.  Yes, there will be advances in medicine and other scientific areas, in arts, music and leisure pursuits,  which improve our quality of life, but we already have the capability of affording everyone a decent material standard of living, provided we share more equitably.

Climate Change

We have to take this very seriously indeed: it is not just an optional add-on but must be central to our policies.  The current Labour government seems to be prepared to postpone or even ditch policies to limit damage to the environment if they impede short run physical growth and employment. We need to find other ways of “ raising all boats” to an acceptable standard.  Better sharing is the obvious one.

Inequality

Posted in News | Tagged and | 27 Comments

My journey from Socialism to Liberalism

Embed from Getty Images
I have always been fascinated with politics and how the world works. Our history, our present and our future. How we co-exist in society. Being a young idealist, I first felt that the answers to the issues that we faced were through Socialism. I remember seeing Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the leadership of the Labour Party, a weary looking man who somehow was able to connect to people of different generations and backgrounds. I was inspired. I joined the Labour Party in 2016, hoping for a better future.

Looking back at that time, I did see the world through a one-dimensional lens. Rich versus poor, the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat. Back then, when asked on how to solve the issues of the day, I would always resort to “just raise taxes on the rich”. It was the magical answer I had to any issue on the economy, never looking at the potential consequences that major tax rises could have to both businesses and workers.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 18 Comments

Lib Dem led Councils shortlisted for top Award

The Local Authority publication the Municipal Journal has shortlisted a number of Lib Dem-led Councils for their ‘Local Authority of the Year Award’.

The Award recognises “councils who, through a collective effort, drive innovation and are delivering the best outcomes for their communities”. What is really striking is that, of the seven finalists, all but one are either Lib Dem-run or with Lib Dems involved in running the councils.

One finalist is the Lib Dem-run Council of Watford. Peter Taylor, the elected Mayor of Watford said :

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue: AI art and Neo-Fascism

For being such keen environmentalists and anti-fascists, the Lib Dems need to be far more critical of generative AI than we currently are. But as opposed to talking about the obvious and well-known environmental damage that AI causes, I’d like to focus on the much less talked about the latter: AI art as the contemporary fascist aesthetic.

This should be glaringly apparent if we just take a short look at the people who are pro-AI art: from Trump and his administration using Ghibli-style AI images to publicise their illegal and inhumane deportations, to Elon Musk generating a drawing of …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 4 Comments

Mark Pack writes: The biggest prize in May’s local elections

Lib Dems in sunshine with Mike Ross, Mark Pack and Shaffaq MohammedThere are hundreds of important prizes at stake for us in the May local elections.

Wards where we are standing our first candidate in years. Wards where winning would give us our first breakthrough in an area. Wards where winning would make us the main opposition on the council. Wards where winning could give us leadership of the council for the first time. Wards where winning would cement our record in power locally.

But perhaps the biggest prize at stake for the Liberal Democrats is one that has never been on offer before: the new Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor.

It brings together two areas with impressive local Liberal Democrat teams: the Hull team that took power from Labour even while the Conservatives were in power in Downing Street, and the East Riding team that has ridden an impressive run of by-election wins to be a growing political force locally.

There is important political power at stake to improve the lives of residents in the area.

For the party more widely too there is the chance to show our relevance in northern England, to get a new Liberal Democrat in important local and regional media markets and to show how we can win against Labour.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 2 Comments

Welcome to my day: 14 April – wouldn’t a bit of boredom and a nice cup of tea hit the spot right now?

As you see this, gentle reader, I’ll be back in the United Kingdom, but, as I write this, I’m on a Eurostar heading back after a week of looking out of train windows, eating local food, drinking local beers and wines, and admiring the architecture (or not, in the case of Wiener Neustadt) of a variety of European towns and cities. It has been reassuringly relaxing, if not exactly dull.

But beyond the cocoon of a train, the world has been a tempestuous place, with on again, off again tariffs, all sorts of previously unthinkable actions, and a sense that, perhaps, putting someone in charge of the world’s largest economy who is, let’s put it politely, somewhat mercurial, may not be entirely the best strategy. It is a reminder that solid competence, whilst not likely to inspire campaigners, might actually have long-term benefits.

One of the criticisms of the European Union was the glacial speed of its decision making. Yet it was almost entirely predictable, because when you have to achieve unanimity or, at least, rather more than a simple plurality, the deal making is easy to assess. And business, and the markets generally, like that. The alternative, as is being demonstrated currently, is not quite as popular (unless you have an inside track…). Predictability also has its advantages when it comes to things like the law and how it is applied, as it really does help in agreeing contracts if you know that they can be enforced if necessary.

Posted in Op-eds | 1 Comment

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

Republican Senators and Congressmen must be terrified of losing their jobs. And if they do go, they can only blame the man who helped put them in office— Donald Trump.

Before the economic meltdown, the Republican legislators were facing town hall meetings filled with constituents angry about Elon Musk’s chain saw approach to government, cuts in foreign aid, deportations of students and attacks on the constitution and the courts.

Almost to a man (or woman) they faced the crowds with a Trumpian smile that tried to reassure the voters that the president knew what he was doing and that he was going to “Make America Great Again”.

They had to say that because Trump and his billionaire acolyte Elon Musk held the campaign purse strings. The president has even managed to install his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as chairman of the Republican National Committee which vets candidates and channels party funds.

If a Republican candidate failed to pay obeisance to the MAGA leader and his policies then the next time they came up for re-election, Musk or another one of Trump’s billionaire friends, would finance their opponent in the primary elections for the nomination. In American politics, money talks.

Or does it? Elon Musk spent a record $25 million backing the Republican candidate in the race for a seat on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. The Democrat candidate, Susan Crawford, won it by ten points. The electorate balked at being told what to do by an American oligarch who was working with Donald Trump to destroy the American government and its constitution.

What happened in Wisconsin could easily be a harbinger of political battles across America, especially now that economic chaos has set in. Inflation is rising despite Trump’s promises to bring it down. Most people don’t believe his promise to protect Medicaid and Medicare. Their pensions are sliding along with the stock market. And they don’t like the rest of the world hating them.

They voted for change. But not for the ill-planned unbridled change wrought by Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants in Congress and the cabinet.

There is an excellent chance of the Democrats winning both houses in the mid-term elections. They may even win a two-thirds majority in the Senate which will give them enough seats to impeach—and convict—Donald Trump for abuse of power.

But the mid-terms are two years away and Donald Trump has proven that he can wreak untold damage on America—and the world—in under 100 days.

Some Republican congressmen have spoken out against the president. Not enough. Many more have whispered their opposition in private but backed him when the cameras turned on them. If they can be persuaded by their town halls that their futures are damaged by association with Trump and assured by opposition to him than perhaps—just perhaps—Congress can grow a backbone.

Iran

The Iranians must be terrified of Trump. That can be the only reason they have agreed to meet in Oman this weekend to discuss swapping potential nuclear weapons for peace.

The reasons are clear. Tehran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza have been decimated. They have lost their string of bases in Syria and the Iranian-backed Houthis are suffering.

But most important of all, success has set Benjamin Netanyahu’s war-driven pulse racing. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah is not enough for the Israeli prime minister. He wants to go after what he calls “the head of the snake”—Iran.

President Biden worked hard to keep a tight rein on Netanyahu’s blood lust, both in Gaza and Lebanon and towards Iran.

Trump appears willing to unleash him, maybe even with American help. He has proposed taking over Gaza, moving out the Palestinians and turning the area into a Middle Eastern Riviera. And as Netanyahu has increased his attacks in Gaza and the West Bank Trump has said nothing other than though to tell Hamas that “all Hell will break loose” if Hamas fails to release remaining Israeli hostages.

Posted in Op-eds | 11 Comments

Special Saturday sitting: What did Lib Dem MPs say?

Today saw only the fourth Saturday sitting of the House of Commons that I can remember.

The first was in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands. I remember listening as we stripped the walls in my bedroom.

The second was in 2019 when I, along with hundreds of thousands of others was on a People’s Vote march outside. The atmosphere that day was very muted. We kind of knew we were on our way out of the EU despite the drama inside.

The third was when the late Queen died in 2022.

Today, the Government was awarded some pretty sweeping emergency powers to secure the future of the steel industry. I was pleased to see our Daisy Cooper secure a commitment from the Secretary of State to give them up as soon as they could.

The first Lib Dem to speak was Ed Davey, intervening on Jonathan Reynolds to make a point about some in the room:

We will scrutinise this Bill today, but we want to do so in a constructive fashion. Given the huge damage that President Trump’s tariffs have done to the British steel industry, accelerating this crisis, does the Secretary of State agree that any Member of this House who actively campaigned for President Trump’s election and cheered him on has behaved shamefully unpatriotically and should apologise to British steelworkers?

Reynolds didn’t take the bait on that one, but the point was made. Nigel Farage’s show outside the steel works this week was pretty much the first time he had taken any notice that it existed.

Christine Jardine intervened on Liam Byrne to ask about national security:

Does the right hon. Member agree that there is a wider issue at stake: our energy security and national security? We have seen what can go wrong with a Chinese company that we do not trust, and we see Chinese influence increasing in other vital sectors, particularly our energy industry. Should that not underline our concern and act as a warning that we do not want the Chinese to have control of our energy supply?

Daisy Cooper then gave her reaction to the Bill as spokesperson:

Recalling Parliament today was absolutely the right thing to do, but to be frank, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in a situation in which our sovereign steel industry is in such peril as a result of the Conservatives’ failings and the Labour Government are now trying to give themselves unprecedented powers.

It is astounding that, even after British Steel was sold for £1, even after it entered insolvency and even after the Government’s Insolvency Service temporarily ran it, the Conservatives pressed ahead to erect more trade barriers through their botched Brexit deal, scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council and allowed the sale of the steel plant to a Chinese firm that, according to Ministers, is now refusing to negotiate in good faith at least to keep the plant going. The Conservatives were asleep at the wheel. They failed to tackle energy costs and business rates, and now Trump’s tariffs and contagious protectionism are the straw that has broken the camel’s back.

With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s disastrous tariffs causing economic turmoil around the world, we must secure the future of steel production here at home. We Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of seriousness and urgency shown by the Government in recalling Parliament. We must work together to rescue our steel sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly rely on it. But under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State is giving himself huge and unconstrained powers that could set a very dangerous precedent. I urge him to make a commitment, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal the powers that he is giving himself as soon as possible—within six months at the latest—and to come back to this House for another vote to extend those powers if they are still required after that.

Reynolds gave her the commitment she was looking for:

As I tried to articulate in my opening speech on Second Reading, I understand the gravity of the situation, which gives puts some context to the demands for further powers to be included in the Bill. The limitation, as wide as it is, is the right measure, and I can give the hon. Member my absolute assurance that I shall seek to do exactly as she says.

Daisy continued:

I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving that assurance, which is important in the context of what the powers in the Bill actually are.

Clause 3(4)(a) gives the Secretary of State the power to break into anywhere to seize assets. Clause 3(4)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to take whatever steps he considers appropriate—not what a court or a reasonable person might consider to be appropriate—to seize or secure assets. Clause 4(3), on offences, makes it a crime for anyone not to follow the instructions of the Secretary of State, or to refuse to assist the Secretary of State in taking those steps without a “reasonable excuse”. However, a “reasonable excuse” is not defined in the Bill, no examples are given, and, quite frankly, it is hard to work out what defence of a “reasonable excuse” might be accepted given that, under clause 3(4)(c), it is whatever the Secretary of State himself considers to be okay.

Clause 6(1), on indemnities appears to give the Secretary of State and potentially any other person who is with him—a police officer, a civil servant, or a Border Force official—immunity from prosecution for using any of these wide-ranging powers. These powers are unprecedented and they are unconstrained. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that that is precisely why he intends to repeal them as soon as possible.

More broadly, the Government must now also bring forward plans to guarantee the future of this vital sector. We know the steel industry is surrounded by crippling uncertainty. After decades of underinvestment and shocking indifference to our sovereign economic security, the previous Conservative Government have left our sovereign national capacity on steel diminished and endangered. Yet there is no chance that UK demand for steel will disappear. How absurd and irresponsible is it that we have a sustainable and enduring long-term market for British steel, but that our supply could keel over in a matter of days because of the failures of the failed Conservative party?

So looking ahead, let us remember that saving Scunthorpe is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. There have been significant discussions about the future ownership structure of this company. Given the precarious fiscal position in which the Government find themselves, it is important that all options on ownership are put on the table, so that this House can take an informed decision about what they mean for the public finances. I hope the Government will make a commitment that, in the coming weeks, they will bring forward a report that sets out options for future ownership of the plant.

Looking ahead, many big questions remain unanswered. Will the Government immediately designate UK-made steel a nationally strategic asset? Will they be using direct reduced iron, and, if so, will that form part of the UK’s plans alongside protecting the production of virgin steel at Scunthorpe? When will the Government bring forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy? Will Ministers work shoulder to shoulder with our European and Commonwealth partners to tear down trade barriers, including by negotiating a customs union by 2030? Will they develop initiatives to retrain and upskill workers across the country as we transition to greener methods of steel production? How do the Government intend to respond to calls from UK Steel for the Government to achieve the lowest electricity prices in Europe, parity with competitors on network charges, and wholesale electricity market reform?

This case should also raise concerns about the role of Chinese corporate interests in the UK’s national critical infrastructure. The decision by British Steel’s Chinese owners to turn down the Government’s offer of £500 million to support the future of the Scunthorpe plant has directly precipitated this crisis. We must now be clear-eyed about the risks posed by Chinese involvement in our country’s vital infrastructure. To that end, will the Minister tell the House when the Government’s promised UK-China audit will be released, and how the Government plan to strengthen protections for critical infrastructure? Can he assure the House that the Government have assessed whether there is any risk that Jingye, on behalf of the Chinese Government, has deliberately run down the plant to jeopardise the UK’s capacity to produce steel?

We are in a precarious position, and it is not as if there were no warnings. In 2022, the Royal United Services Institute think-tank said:

“Domestically produced steel is used in defence applications, and offshoring the supply chain may have security implications—for example, in a scenario where multiple allied countries rearm simultaneously at a time of global supply disruption, such as during a major geopolitical confrontation.”

The fact that Jingye has now closed down the supply of raw materials is further evidence that the plant should not have been sold to it in the first place. Quite frankly, the fact that some Conservative MPs are calling for nationalisation shows how far through the looking glass we really are.

Is not the Conservatives’ attitude abundantly clear? On national security, they cut troop numbers by 10,000; on food security, they undermined our farmers with unforgiveably bad trade deals; and on economic security, they left our country with almost no sovereign steel capacity. On security, the Conservatives left our island nation severely vulnerable, like flotsam in the sea, passively bobbing up and down or being bashed around by the tides of international events.

As for hon. Members from the private limited company Reform Ltd, they have a bit of cheek to claim to support UK steelworkers while cheering on their pal Toggle showing location ofColumn 857President Trump, whose punishing trade war is putting those steelworkers’ jobs at risk. Perhaps the company’s directors who sit in this House will come clean about whose side they are really on.

Time and again, we have seen the failures of an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to industry across all sectors, from the failure of our water companies to the shocking state of our housing nationally and the dismal situation of our health service. For too long, there has been no stability for these industries, which are constantly fixed on a short-term basis only, to the point where they are practically held together by string and tape and the dedicated workers who remain. We Liberal Democrats stand ready to help constructively to bring about an outcome that delivers real change.

Welsh MP David Chadwick told the House that his grandfather worked at the blast furnaces in Port Talbot and expressed his annoyance that the steel works there was just left to close without a recall of Parliament to save it:

Posted in News and Parliament | Tagged , , , and | 13 Comments

Wera Hobhouse refused entry to Hong Kong to see new grandson

I remember the anticipation of going to meet my first niece when she was born during Lib Dem conference at Harrogate. At least I only had a 4 hour train ride in the same country to take to meet this beautiful new person. And nobody to stand in the way of me meeting her.

I can only imagine how our Wera Hobhouse must be feeling. She and her husband William went to Hong Kong on Thursday to meet their baby grandson for the first time and the Chinese authorities simply would not let her in. Even more cruelly they decided that they would admit William. However, they both flew back and have been talking to the Times (£)  about their ordeal, which included several hours of interrogation by immigration officials.

Hobhouse has never visited Hong Kong and had been excited about spending time with her son’s family, having seen them only a handful of times in recent years. “My son was waiting at the other end at arrivals,” she said. “I couldn’t even see him and give him a hug and I hadn’t seen him in a year. When I was given the decision my voice was shaking and I was just saying: ‘Why, please explain to me?’ They never gave me an explanation. That was so cruel.

“I just said: ‘I want to see my grandson, I want to cuddle him. He was born three months ago, what is the problem?’ I am obviously devastated. I was obviously looking forward to holding and cuddling him and … establishing a relationship. They are obviously quite a long way away, so each month you lose is a bit of a loss for the relationship I will have with my grandson. Having to fly back, it was so hard. I didn’t cry but I was very close to tears.”

Ed Davey has written to David Lammy to ask him to complain about Wera’s treatment:

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 2 Comments

Observations of an Expat: It’s War

Trump has declared war on China. It’s a trade war, not a shooting war. But the fallout will still be devastating and it will reach every corner of the globe.

The markets rallied on the news that Trump had blinked. He had reduced everyone’s tariffs to a blanket 10 percent—plus 25 percent for cars, aluminium and steel—except China.

Then tariffs on Chinese goods went up. China retaliated. They went up again. As of this writing tariffs on China stand at 145 percent. And Chinese tariffs on US goods are at 84 percent.

That effectively means that the world’s two biggest economies, who between them control 49 percent of global trade, have locked themselves out of each other’s markets. American farmers who rely on China for their sales will be left with crops rotting in the fields. And American shops that sell everything from t-shirts to I-phones will be left with the choice of either empty shelves or more than doubling their prices.

Trump promised to bring inflation down. It will go up. So will interest rates as the Federal Reserve Bank tries to control spiralling prices. Which means that mortgages and business loans will rise. As business costs rise so will unemployment.

These problems will extend far beyond American shores. There is more than a grain of truth in the saying “when American sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold.”

But there is more. If America can’t sell to China and China can’t sell to America then where will all the soybeans, wheat, steel, cars, computers… go. The answer is Europe, the UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and India. This means that those countries goods will have to compete against Chinese and American businesses forced to dump their surplus output on third country markets. And, of course, all those countries will have to pay tariffs to export to America.

And there is more. Trump claims that the tariffs will increase foreign investment in America. Companies, he says, will build factories in the US in order to avoid US tariffs and sell to Americans. But will they? Most major businesses these days think in global not national terms. America is sealing its market off from the rest of the world and, anyway, it is quite likely to be in recession. Finally, foreign businesses crave economic stability. Trump’s up, down, in, out, unhinged shoot-from-the-hip economic policies are creating chaos rather than stability.

Perhaps most worrying of all, is the bond market. Bonds are effectively loans. US Treasury bonds are loans made to the US government to finance America’s trade deficit. At the beginning of the month America’s foreign debt stood at $7.9 trillion. Half of the debt is held by governments. Japan, China and Britain being the top three.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 14 Comments

Are we Trumpers now? Why our “Buy British” message sends the wrong signal

As a committed Liberal Democrat, I was disappointed by our recent “Buy British” video. It sends the wrong message about who we are—and worse, it risks alienating the very voters we need to attract.

In this article, I want to explain why the video undermines our liberal values, explore the political motivations I fear may lie behind it, and argue that it hurts us more than it helps.

Animal welfare or economic nationalism?

Our last manifesto mentions animal welfare five times. It promises an Animal Welfare Bill, a ban on selling animal products produced to lower standards than those allowed in the UK, and a commitment to meet or exceed the EU’s stricter rules on antibiotics in farming.

But what are these policies really for? Are they motivated by genuine concern for animal suffering—or are they more about shielding UK farmers from cheaper competition abroad?

When Ed Davey encourages people to “buy British” even when it means buying factory-farmed meat, it starts to feel like the latter. So who are we making policy for? The country as a whole—or the older rural communities that currently vote for us?

Environmentalism isn’t about borders

Look at our stated values. Under the “Liberal Democrat Values” section of our website, we call ourselves environmentalists. We commit to “environmentally sustainable means of production and consumption.”

But when it comes to food, it’s what we eat — not where it was made — that has the biggest environmental impact. Our World in Data makes this point clearly.

I’m not saying we should tell people they have to be vegan. But if we’re going to start recommending foods, those recommendations should align with our environmental values. Otherwise, we risk appearing tone-deaf — especially to younger environmentalist members and voters.

Are we serious about tackling climate change and inspiring the next generation, or are we focused on keeping favour with older, rural voters? It’s a fair question — one that also applies to the debate around the so-called “family farm tax.”

A proudly internationalist party — so why the protectionist message?

Here’s another quote from our values statement:

“Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists. We believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward-looking.”

Why, then, are we adopting the anti-globalist, Trump-style rhetoric of the “Buy British” campaign?

Posted in Op-eds | 38 Comments

Why I’m a liberal, through the lens of the Oxford Labour Club

Being an absolute lover of politics, I often fill my term-time Saturday evenings with attendance at the University of Oxford’s Labour Club’s social ‘Beer and Bickering’. This is a social event which features three motions on various pressing political topics, decreasing in seriousness throughout the night. One fantastic feature of this event is that continually reminds me why I’m a liberal – and why liberalism matters.

Part of the reason I attend is that I love being one of the few people who breaks up the total consensus of opinion on most topics. Motions have included ‘this house would introduce a maximum wage’ – which demonstrated an incredible misunderstanding of who actually makes up the bulk of the British state’s tax revenue – and the one which inspired this article, ‘this house would ban private healthcare.’

The debate went about exactly how you’d expect a bunch of left wing 19-year-olds to discuss private healthcare. The general sentiment was that it was a total moral outrage that certain people could pay to access care. I note that this was often separate from practical arguments about capacity, with the overriding consensus being that even if it had no impact on the ability of the ordinary working person to access healthcare, it was still wrong that someone should be able to pay for a different service.

The room was not, I fear, turned by my rousing case for individual choice and liberty. It was turned, however, by a member of their committee reminding those present that under the current system access to certain aspects of trans healthcare are only available privately, and not on the NHS. How can we ban private healthcare, the argument went, if it would cause suffering to these individuals who the government won’t provide for?

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 17 Comments

Could you help make Lib Dem policy on economy, international security, democracy or primary healthcare?

The Federal Policy Committee is looking for party members to sit on four new policy working groups.  You need to apply by Monday 21 April.

These groups will consult, consider evidence and bring policy papers to future conferences.

The subjects are:

A thriving economy:

Boosting productivity and getting the economy growing strongly and sustainably is critical for improving people’s living standards and wellbeing, expanding opportunity, and raising money to spend on public services and defence.

A new policy working group will build on our 2024 general election manifesto to further develop our distinctive Liberal Democrat narrative on why the economy has been performing so poorly, how to turn it around, and how to make sure everyone feels the benefits of growth equitably.

Apply here.

International security:

Last year, the party endorsed a wide-ranging policy paper on international security covering defence and security, diplomacy, international development and soft power. We knew then that a Trump return to the White House would pose new challenges.

Now that the grave challenges to the future of NATO, European security and more are starting to become clear, and will continue to evolve, a new policy working group will review our previous approach in the light of the world of ongoing developments, to outline our distinctive Liberal Democrat response to Trump, Putin and the other global challenges we face.

Apply here.

Defending and strenghening British democracy

Posted in News | Tagged , and | Leave a comment

Jamie Greene on joining the Lib Dems

Unfortunately, I had to miss Friday at Scottish Conference for family reasons.

As I arrived in Inverness in the afternoon, my phone started going wild and I realised that Jamie Greene MSP had joined us. His arrival brings our MSPs to five and means that we can now be an official group in the Parliament. This will give us more committee places and speaking time. Willie Rennie will be joining the Corporate Body as our official business manager.

Watch that moment here. Alex Cole-Hamilton introduced him and clearly enjoyed himself doing so.

The most exciting day at Conference in ages and I’m not there. I was very happy to have Jamie in the party, but had major FOMO.

However, I did get to meet him at the dinner that evening. Alistair Carmichael took him round all the tables, telling him that I was  “mad, bad and dangerous to know.” Jamie said he was already aware of Lib Dem Voice and said he would write for us.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 1 Comment

The hidden cost of Local Government Reorganisation

This May, thousands of voters like me face a democratic void – our voices silenced as local elections are suspended under the convenient guise of “fast-track devolution” and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). While Labour and Conservative local councillors rushed to chase this programme in pursuit of the “sunlit uplands” of devolution and LGR, the truth is far more troubling. Both parties appear all too willing to dodge voter scrutiny, with the government eagerly agreeing to cancel elections in Hampshire for at least a year at their request. The result? County councillors continuing to wield power without a mandate from May onwards.

Over recent months, I’ve investigated how LGR truly affects women’s representation and political diversity. I’m about to share my findings with Elect Her and the Fawcett Society – non-partisan organisations campaigning against gender inequality in our politics. The recent Lib Dem Voice article examining LGR’s impact on younger candidates struck a chord with me, compelling me to speak out and expand on these urgent concerns.

From my investigation into the councils highlighted by the government as LGR “success stories”, it confirms what many of us have suspected: women’s representation in local government – already in a deeply troubling state – will regress under LGR. Political diversity suffers a similar fate, with smaller parties, including Liberal Democrats, bearing a disproportionate burden of this democratic retreat. The broken two-party system strikes again!

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 17 Comments

Welsh Lib Dems select candidates for key targets

The Welsh Liberal Democrats have announced their lead list candidates for five of their top target constituencies in the 2026 Senedd election at their Spring Conference in Cardiff at the weekend. The Senedd will now be elected entirely by proportional representation using closed party lists and the D’Hondt system. This replaces the previous system of first past the post constituencies and a top up list. Wales has been divided up into 16 constituencies, each electing 6 MSs.

Party Leader Jane Dodds MS will head the party’s list in the Brecheiniog Tawe Nedd constituency. Cllr Rodney Berman and Cllr Sam Bennett, the party’s group leaders on Cardiff and Swansea councils, have been selected to lead the lists in Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf and Gwyr Abertawe constituencies respectively.

In Ceredigion Benfro, local business owner Sandra Jervis will lead the party’s list, while the Gwynedd Maldwyn list will be headed up by Llanidloes County Councillor Glyn Preston. 

Posted in News | 1 Comment

Why are we not leaning into our radical side?

In recent months, a direction of travel has emerged for the party. One might expect that faced with a right-leaning, technocratic Labour party that’s disappointing in government, we Lib Dems would lean into our radical side, channelling Kennedy in a full-throated stand for our values to outflank Labour, if not wholly to the left, then certainly on a more radical side.

That is not what has been happening – if anything we remain more fixated on last year’s battles against the Conservatives. Flashes of radicalism are visible in our opposition to Trump and Farage, and standing up for communities. But in recent months we have also seen signs that the appetite for being the party of Kennedy is not there, despite the widening gap there in British politics.

For instance, the ‘Buy British, back Britain’ line coming out of HQ sits uncomfortably with both our values and our – in my opinion, much better – messaging about supporting our allies. As Liberals, we should not be joining the throngs manning the battlements and pulling up the drawbridges, instead being consistent in reminding everyone of the value of a community of nations working together. We’re doing that already with our robust rhetoric about aligning strongly with our European and Commonwealth allies – our messaging about whose products we buy should echo that. ‘Buy local, buy liberal’ would allow us to champion our own producers as well as goods from nations that uphold our values.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 18 Comments

Liberator 428 is out

The new issue of Liberator is out.

Liberator 428 is out and can be downloaded for free here:

In Liberator 428 we have Commentary, news in Radical Bulletin, Letters, Lord Bonkers’ Diary and:

TRUMP DRIVES US BACK TO EUROPE.

Americas pivot away from Europe got noisier under Trump but is a long term policy change. Time for a European Defence Union, says Nick Harvey

GIVING UP ON SOFT POWER

Deliberately cruel actions by the Trump administration mean the end of international development aid and the influence of its former donors in developing countries, says Rebecca Tinsley

THE CRUEL CONMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Martha Elliott explains Donald Trumps assault on Americas constitution and separation of powers

IT WONT WORK THIS TIME EITHER

Labour is set to follow a series of failed planing reforms that will erode local democracy, weaken nature protection, and fail to deliver sufficient homes, says Bridget Fox

SPEAKING OF FREEDOM

Jonathan Calder delves into a new book on radical Liberalism in an age of crisis

WOULD PADDY DO THIS?

Posted in News | Tagged | 1 Comment

Is this a Liberal moment?

Can the election of Donald Trump be a major opportunity for Liberal Democrats? Quite possibly, though the jury is still out. In fact I’ve just written a short history of British Liberalism which ends with that question.

I’ve argued in the book that British Liberalism has made the political weather when it has mobilised public opinion in favour of a political reset, or against a particular threat. Liberals have campaigned best when they have attacked powerful vested interests and damaging concentrations of power – when they have urged constitutional reform (the nineteenth-century Reform Acts) or stood against tariffs and sectional economic policies (the Corn Laws; Tariff Reform). But it’s not always easy to convince voters that constitutional and structural issues should matter to them. Timing is always central to political success.

In the nineteenth century, Liberals’ favourite slogan was ‘Reform’, which was shorthand for changes to the distribution of parliamentary seats and to the franchise. Reform was demanded for several reasons, particularly to stop high taxes and government oppression of minorities. It was a call for a new, more responsive politics.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 15 Comments

Davey on Starmer speech: “End this trade war through strength not timidity”

Responding to the Prime Minister’s speech on supporting UK businesses following Trump’s tariffs, Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey said:

Donald Trump has launched an assault on the global economy which threatens thousands of British jobs and family finances with another pasting in the midst of a cost of living crisis.

The Government needs to break from its policy of cowering in the corner and stand tall with our Commonwealth and European allies against Trump’s tariffs through a new economic coalition of the willing.

The strategy of hoping Donald Trump will be nice to us has not survived contact with reality.

Posted in News and Press releases | Tagged | 14 Comments

Making Labour Councillors more comfortable

Labour Councillors in Merton have come up with a way of cutting down on scrutiny from opposition councillors – led by 17 Liberal Democrats. Last week’s Council meeting saw Labour force though a whole series of changes to the constitution which will drastically affect the ability of Opposition Councillors to hold them to account.

The draconian new rules:

  • Limit accountability on key issues by halving the number of questions to Cabinet Members.
  • Reduce the publication of key information on the administration’s performance and whether it’s meeting its own promises, by abolishing ‘strategic theme reports’ and questions.
  • Stifle debate on issues residents care about by limiting opposition motions. For smaller groups – like the Conservatives – that’s to fewer than one a meeting. Independent councillors will rarely, if ever be able to propose motions.
  • Gag minority political opinions. Again, smaller groups – like the Conservatives – will see their speaking time in debates limited.
  • Rig the rule’s in Labour’s favour by fixing it so that Labour councillors get more speaking time in debates, and giving the Labour Leader of the Council unlimited interventions.
Posted in Local government | Tagged and | 4 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Michael BG
    Simon R, “it’s not at all clear to me how deliberately making wealthy people poorer in the name of equality can improve anything. That seems to me ver...
  • Thelma Davies
    Why should American Jewish students attending Harvard need to call out the actions of the Israeli government? The three university presidents who gave testimony...
  • Daniel Stylianou
    I’m always astounded by how many people suddenly develop law degrees when they read a summary of a judgement they don’t like. Was the decision of the SC ...
  • Joseph Bourke
    In reality there is not much in the way of British consumer goods left to buy ...
  • Ricky Treadwell
    Do we want to give this ground to Labour? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/08/rachel-reeves-rejects-calls-buy-british-campaign-us-tariffs I refuse...