Education spokesperson Munira Wilson gave her keynote speech to Conference yesterday. Enjoy:
Education spokesperson Munira Wilson gave her keynote speech to Conference yesterday. Enjoy:
Watch Al Pinkerton talk about our vision for closer ties to Europe:
Taking part in Lib Dem Conference online (I cannot make it to Brighton, so watching and voting online) it was good to see the first policy motion was about homeless children, although tragic that we have to discuss the subject at all
You can see below more about it, but it covered the awful issues there are for children, as well of course as their parents and other adults. Shocking to hear that There are over 176,000 children living in temporary accommodation across England, and that Since 2019, 104 children have died with temporary accommodation listed as a contributing factor to their death, 76 of whom were under the age of one, with deaths attributed to causes including lack of access to cots and Moses baskets, overcrowding, poverty and the chaos of homelessness.
Excellent and moving speeches, amendments adding important issues. The motion as amended is here.
The next step of course is for those in power to take note, and actually do something about it.
It brought back memories of the mid 1990’s when there were homeless families here in Stockton on Tees in Council accommodation. My involvement started when I found out that play schemes for the holidays would not include these children. I was horrified and with a lot of support, and a quickly made grant from the Church Urban Fund a play scheme was started for the summer.
As you can imagine it didn’t end there, with parents asking, what now? A project started with a lot of “challenges”. The Labour Councillors in charge would not support it any way, and were upset when we got more funding, even though we weren’t a registered charity. But with the backing of some good council officers (we held meetings at lunchtime so they could attend in their own time), one good labour councillor friend, other friends and churches, we went ahead. Not just play schemes in school holidays, but activities for parents and under 5’s, and a creche so parents could attend courses. At the playscheme we had lunch, all sat at tables with knives and forks. For years afterwards I would meet a mum who said thanks for the opportunity given to her to do some training that had led to her career. But the downside was that after a few years the revolving door started. We were seeing the same families that had been housed, back again. For all sorts of reasons, domestic violence, family breakdown, inability to budget as crises hit.
I’m settling in to day 2 of watching Conference. I’ve already spent more time “in the hall” than I have in the past 3 in person conferences. I’m uaually to be found on the Lib Dem Women or LGBT+ Lib Dem stalls, or flitting about the place from meeting to meeting.
And how gorgeous is this stage set? When I saw the purple, I wondered at first if our Jennie Rigg had had a hand in it. But, seriously, if she had, it would have had a lot more purple and Libby would have been turned into a bat.
What I really like is that we are wearing our heart on our sleeve. Right there, the quote from the preamble to our constitution closest to our hearts:
No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
On the other side of the stage, “Liberty, Equality, Community.”
And that’s not all. I usually avoid the rally for two reasons. First of all, I can watch it on You Tube any time. I get the chance to catch up with my friends and Lib Dem family twice a year. Secondly, the rally can be a bit of a vomit inducing cringe-fest.
Last night it was an assault on the emotions as speaker after speaker spoke about what motivated them as Lib Dems. Anton Georgiou from Brent talking about his grandparents arriving from Cyprus with £20 and working hard to make their lives here and how that has inspired him to do all the work he does to support refugees. Wendy Chamberlain talking about how her mother caring for her Grandad and her husband caring for his mum inspired her to achieve her Carer’s Leave Act.
I wonder if all this values-forward stuff has anything to do with James Holt, our excellent head of media during the coalition years who has returned as our Director of Political Strategy. I am sure that he will understand the need to make sure that our actions match up.
The Falklands are back in the news. Argentine President Javier Milei has restated claims to “Las Islas Malvinas” and support from America and Chile—which was vital in 1982—is now doubtful.
But 2026 is not 1982. In 1982 there were about 100 Royal Marines at Port Stanley to protect the islands and the Royal Navy ice patrol ship HMS Endurance was facing withdrawal. After the Falklands War the government decided that deterrence was the best strategy.
There are now roughly 1,200–1,500 British military and supporting personnel in the South Atlantic, centred on the Mount Pleasant Complex, where the Royal Air Force bases four Typhoon FGR4 fighters, together with a Voyager tanker and an A400M Atlas transport aircraft. The islands also have radar, ground-based air defence and a rotating infantry company.
At sea, HMS Medway, a River-class offshore patrol vessel, replaced HMS Forth in January 2026 as the Royal Navy’s permanent South Atlantic patrol ship. An attack on the islands would therefore risk giving the attackers a very bloody nose.
Argentina, however, is increasing defence spending. Early control of the air would be key. Argentina has recently purchased 24 former Danish F-16s. The first six operational aircraft arrived in December 2025.
Milei would also need to beef up his navy. The initial 1982 invasion was by sea. Once the airfield at Port Stanley was secured, the Argentines flew in troops on transport aircraft. Defence planners would anticipate a similar requirement today, but this time Argentina would have to neutralise Mount Pleasant and overcome a much stronger British garrison and air-defence system.
The diplomatic position is as important as the military line-up. In 1982 Chile and Argentina were at loggerheads over the Beagle Channel. As a result, the government of Augusto Pinochet provided Britain with vital intelligence, reconnaissance and logistical support.
The Beagle dispute is over and recently President José Antonio Kast reaffirmed Chilean support for Argentina’s “legitimate sovereignty rights” over the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. He stressed, however, the need for a peaceful resolution to the dispute.
More important is the US position. In 1982 Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger led the way in pushing for strong American support for Britain. The result was the supply of Sidewinder missiles, satellite communications, intelligence, reconnaissance assistance, logistical support and other supplies. Weinberger was later rewarded with an honorary knighthood.
In 2026 the Pentagon has considered using the Falklands issue as leverage over Britain because of disagreements over the Iran War. On 31 August Trump said Washington was reviewing its position on the islands.
Javier Milei heard Trump. He responded with some sabre-rattling and this week announced tougher sanctions against companies involved in oil exploration around the islands.
Milei is highly sensitive to popularity and retaking the Falklands would be politically explosive. But even without American and Chilean support, a successful Argentine military operation would be extremely difficult. The islands are far better defended than in 1982 and Britain still possesses two aircraft carriers, modern destroyers and nuclear-powered attack submarines.
American help would be useful. But Trump’s help is not necessarily essential.
First up today is a wide-ranging motion on music covering things like AI, planning around music venues, support for music and the right to education in music. That last is so important. Playing an instrument or singing is such a good way of getting out of your own head and the links between musical tuition and attainment are clear.
Then it’s on to active travel – walking, wheeling and cycling with three amendments, one from the Lib Dem Disability Association looking at making active travel safe and accessible for disabled people from the start, one from Lib Dem Women looking …
Paul Walter wrote about the Temporary accommodation debate in his diary earlier
It was a great and sobering debate.
I just wanted to highlight two things that Lib Dems have done. Prue Bray spoke about what her Council in Wokingham has done to reduce the numbers of people in temporary accommodation and to make it a lot safer for those who are.
She said:
Temporary accommodation is a subject that could drive us to despair, but I want to give you some hope by telling you how a Lib Dem council is making a real difference. I am really proud
…
One of the highlights of Brighton is that it’s got a great running track. You just poodle out to the promenade – chunter westwards for (in my case) 2.5 k and then turn round and go back. Job done. The sloshing about of the sea and wind also gives quite an invigorating awakening at 7 o’clock in the morning.
After an instant porridge for breakfast, I was in the main auditorium to hear Gideon Amos MP make an excellent speech in the debate on the Mortality of Children living in temporary accommodation.
Here’s an astonishing fact to stop you in your tracks. Since 2019, 104 children have died with temporary accommodation as a contributing factor to their death. What an absolutely shameful statistic. In the fifth largest economy in the world we cannot find the wherewithal to properly house our families, with 176,000 children living in temporary accommodation in England and Wales – routinely for over two years in many cases.
Thanks to the wonder of Traveline.info and an ingenious chain of five buses, I travelled to Brighton (and will travel back) free on my senior bus pass (Thank you – I know, it’s so hard to imagine that I am entitled to one) and saved, I’m told, 55500g of CO2, compared to driving.
In the process I learnt some valuable lessons in extreme bussing:
Lib Dems desperately want a message that cuts through.
Something that lifts our standing in the polls with the same gravity-defying ease as we’ve seen Reform and the Greens achieve. But I’m afraid there is no single magic phrase or policy position that will do that. (Nor, by the way, is there some charismatic new leader who could instantly rally voters to our cause. We don’t do leadership cults.)
If we want to cut through, we have to be authentic. True to ourselves. True to our values.
People are disillusioned with politicians of all stripes. They see no vision, just tinkering at the edges and broken promises. Politicians have been treating voters like consumers that want to be bribed with pleasing offers. But the focus-group approach to policy formation has failed.
Since voters don’t believe any of these bribes, they feel they may as well vote for the newcomers making the most outrageous promises. Give it another roll of the dice.
But voters aren’t stupid. One woman I called on in my local area is typical. Politics has let her down, along with others in her community that she sees struggling to get by. She wants to believe that things will get better, but knows it will take a very long time to put things right. “It’s too late for me. It’s my grandchildren I’m thinking of,” she tells me. “What kind of a future are they going to have?”
We need to fix what is wrong in Britain, but voters like this woman know it won’t happen overnight. Britain needs a generational shift in how the country is run. Today’s policies set the tone, but they should be just the starting point for a credible vision of reform stretching out over the next 25 years. Without that overarching vision, it ís as though our policies are just plucked out of the air or decided on the whim of the leader (which is ironic considering how democratically our policies are decided).
How do other parties do this? A century ago, when the Labour party replaced the Liberals as the main progressive party, it wasn’t by having a more appealing set of policies at each successive general election. On the contrary, Labour made huge missteps in the 1920s and 1930s. It finally triumphed in 1945 because it had built up a consistent vision for state socialism and welfare (with help from some key Liberal thinkers along the way) that put working people first. Irrespective of its specific policies, voters could see what it stood for.
Liberal Democrats are not going to form the next government, but if we’re going to build up our core vote, then voters need a sense of what we’d aim for in government. They need to know the bigger picture behind our commitment to carers and the NHS, our desire to fix the cost of living, our opposition to sewage in rivers, our commitment to PR and to Europe. Not just the values that we all share – a society in which no-one is held back by poverty, ill health or lack of education, where everyone is valued and empowered to choose their path – but a true sense of what that would look like.
Donald Trump has undermined history’s most successful defence alliance. He is engaged in an all-out trade war with America’s closest neighbour and ally. He is threatening to take control of the territory of another ally. His tariffs have destabilised the world trading system. His repeated attacks on American elections have damaged confidence in one of the cornerstones of US democracy. He is crude, rude and politically divisive. He has cut support for democratic Ukraine while repeatedly accommodating authoritarian Russia. And finally, he has embroiled the United States in a Middle East war that is pushing up energy and food prices around the world.
If the aim of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping is to weaken the power of the United States and the Western alliance, it is difficult to imagine that they could have asked for a more disruptive occupant of the White House.
Donald Trump claims that the Mueller Report exonerated him of allegations of collusion with the Russians. That is false. Robert Mueller concluded that his investigation “did not establish” that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its interference in the 2016 election. He also documented numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians, confirmed that the Russians did interfere and concluded that Moscow expected to benefit from a Trump victory while the Trump campaign expected to benefit from material stolen and released through Russian efforts.
Trump refused Mueller’s request for an in-person interview and instead provided written answers which Mueller later described as inadequate and incomplete. Given everything that has happened since Mueller, it is worth re-examining the allegations and asking the question: Does Moscow have kompromat on Donald Trump?
Kompromat is Russian shorthand for “compromising material” and has entered the vocabulary of intelligence agencies around the world. To ask whether an intelligence service has kompromat on someone is to ask whether it possesses damaging information—true, exaggerated or fabricated—that can be used to blackmail, pressure, manipulate or otherwise exert leverage over that person.
According to the Steele dossier, the Russians possess kompromat on Donald Trump. The details are hazy. The compromising material could involve sex, questionable business dealings, or both.
Republicans frequently say that the Steele dossier has been “debunked.” That is too sweeping. Many of its most sensational allegations have never been substantiated, and some were weakened or contradicted by subsequent investigations. But the broader context in which the dossier was written was very real. Russia interfered extensively in the 2016 election, Trump associates had numerous contacts with Russians, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee later concluded that Paul Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign created opportunities for Russian intelligence to exert influence and obtain confidential information.
I’m feeling quite sad this morning.
I’m not able to be at Conference this year as my husband and I get to grips with our new normal following a life-changing diagnosis a couple of months ago.
I’m missing everyone, but at least being at home means I’m not in the whirlwind so I can keep up with what’s going on and let you all know about it. Also I can watch the Strictly launch show.
So what can everyone in Brighton look forward to today?
In the main hall, I’d be wanting to speak on the heartbreaking and disgraceful situation of children in temporary accommodation. The damage that housing insecurity does to children is simply unforgivable.
The family courts motion is also interesting, particularly in its calls for regulation of therapists who give evidence. It’s frankly frightening that this does not happen already.
A motion on candidate safety looks to tackle the abuse and threats faced by candidates, particularly those from marginalised groups.
And don’t forget the opportunity to question the Federal Conference Committee and Federal Policy Committee. An important part of our internal democracy.
The chilling evidence that 2/3 of maternity units are not alway safe to give birth in is dealt with in the motion on maternity services.
Early life also comes under discussion in motion on rebuilding health visiting.
Debates on rural education, business and the scary state of our world complete the policy debates.
There are also keynote speeches from Europe spokesperson Al Pinkerton, Education spokesperson Munira Wilson and Gloucestershire Council leader Cllr Lisa Spivey.
Here’s the day in full:
The failures are plain to see. Rivers are treated as drains. Homes are left exposed to floods and heat. Public services are forced to pay tomorrow for damage that should have been prevented today. Families face higher bills, weaker services and a natural world in retreat, while Westminster still asks its narrowest question. Has GDP gone up?
GDP is not the enemy. It measures economic activity, and that still has value. The mistake is treating this narrow measure as the test of national success. A business would not sell its factory roof to flatter this year’s accounts while exposing its machinery to the rain. Yet that is what politics does when it runs down the living foundations of our prosperity and calls the transaction growth.
It is time to put GDP back in its place. Let it count activity but not define purpose. Our economy needs a compass, not just a speedometer. It must ask whether growth is widening freedom, strengthening communities, renewing the natural systems on which life depends and increasing the wealth we hold in common.
This is the question for Liberal Democrats. Are we brave enough to tell a different story of sustainability and hope? The liberalism Britain needs now is not thin individualism, nor a faith that remote markets or centralised ministries will save us. It is freedom rooted in dignity, community, stewardship and democratic power. Clean water, secure homes, healthy people, thriving nature, decent work, trusted services and power in people’s own communities are the footings on which liberty stands.
There is no liberal future on a polluted, depleting island. When rivers are unsafe, landscapes are stripped, neighbourhoods are vulnerable and services are hollowed out, people do not become freer. They become more exposed. That is not liberty. It is abandonment dressed up as choice.
There’s a moment every candidate remembers. Not the selection meeting, not the count on election night but the moment before when someone else believed in you, when someone asked you to stand. For most of us, we’d never have got there on our own. Someone else saw it first.
That’s the thread I kept coming back to recently, when the Joint Candidates Sub Committee brought together our Diversity Affiliated Organisations and Campaign Groups to talk about candidates. We heard a lot of honest, thoughtful feedback about our approvals and selection process – what’s working well, and where we must keep improving.
For me, this isn’t an abstract policy discussion on how we get more diverse candidates approved, selected and elected. It’s personal.
The new Candidates team have done a fantastic job of improving candidate onboarding and setting up a referral programme, we well as working on candidate support. Now, we need you.
Standing for Parliament didn’t feel like something for people like me. I only made it through because people in organisations like Chinese East and South East Asian (CESEA), the Campaign for Gender Balance and the Stellar Programme backed me with time, with mentoring, and with the money I didn’t have. Take any one of those away and I’m not writing this as an MP. I went from delivering leaflets to becoming the 656th woman ever elected to this Parliament, and our party’s first MP of East and South East Asian origin. That doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because people and programmes chose to invest in me.
As the Liberal Democrats gather in Brighton, some of the discussion will focus on how to build a stronger, more productive and increasingly inclusive economy. The Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce argues that at a key component of this debate should be consideration of how to cut the costs of doing business.
On a recent visit to Lancashire, I met some incredible businesses from the manufacturing, construction, retail, and hospitality sectors. They all told me how squeezed they felt by rising cost pressures.
But the picture that emerged from our conversations, wasn’t just of the pain businesses are feeling, but of the consequences. One firm said it had previously taken on 25 apprentices, but this year, under the weight of mounting costs, it is hiring just one.
That story, unfortunately, is repeated across the land. British Chambers of Commerce research shows the cost stack facing a typical small or medium-sized business, built up from a decade of government policy decisions, has increased by more than 70%. A quarter of that increase has landed since the Autumn Budget of 2024.
Ask business owners what worries them most, and the answer isn’t complicated: inflation, taxation, and business rates, in that order. According to our latest survey, just 17% of firms say they plan to increase investment in the coming months. That’s the lowest level since the pandemic.
This should worry us all. Every pound a business spends absorbing higher costs, is a pound that doesn’t go towards hiring a young person, upgrading technology, or lowering prices on the shelves. An economy that works for everyone, depends on businesses having the confidence to back themselves. Currently, too many are hamstrung by costs outside their control before they even get the chance to hire, invest, or grow.
That is why, ahead of this year’s Budget, the British Chambers of Commerce is calling for urgent action to cut the cost of doing business.
First, we must tackle the NEETs crisis. Over a million young people out of education, employment or training is a national scandal. Employers want to do their bit, but the incentives to hire young people have been removed, while the risks have grown and the environment toughened. An Employer’s National Insurance holiday for under-25s would make it cheaper and easier for firms to take on a young person rather than pass them over.
On Monday evening, during our APPG AI meeting in the House of Lords, we discussed whether Britain could develop its own sovereign artificial-intelligence language models for military use. One speaker with expertise in military AI suggested that this would not be feasible, at least initially, given the cost involved.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, said that Project ASGARD is helping British soldiers make faster decisions and save time in combat operations through AI agents and targeted large language models (LLMs), with the capability being developed and tested by soldiers in Estonia.
The Army is also developing AI-enabled training. In July 2026, the Ministry of Defence announced a £2 billion, 15-year contract for an AI-enabled training capability intended to support the training of approximately 60,000 soldiers each year through AI and analytics.
The most ambitious element is the new Digital Targeting Web, designed to digitally connect sensors, intelligence systems, commanders and weapons to enable faster decision-making and targeting. The Defence Investment Plan commits nearly £2 billion in new funding to the capability, with the wider programme and supporting digital infrastructure receiving additional investment. Its aim is to reduce the time between detecting a threat and deciding how to respond.
In June 2026, the Ministry also established the ‘Rapid AI Delivery Taskforce’, or TF RAID. Its priorities include machine-assisted intelligence fusion, operations when communications are disrupted, automated military planning and AI-enabled swarms of uncrewed systems. It has been allocated ‘£100 million’.
These are significant programmes. However, they do not yet amount to a clearly identifiable, sovereign British equivalent of France’s military-AI ecosystem.
Liberator 437 is out for conference and can be downloaded free here.
You can sign up to be emailed when each new issue comes out here.
What’s in this issue?
There’s Commentary, Lord Bonkers’ Diary and find out in Radical Bulletin, among lots more, about an attempt to scrap spring conference, a panic over corporate donations and a row concerning one internal election.
BEYOND THE HEARTLANDS.
The Social Liberal Forum is relaunching with a strategy to get the party out of its comfort zone. John Shreeve and Roger Hayes explain
CORPORATE DONATIONS: HOW TO PUT THIS RIGHT
The party establishment has watered down policy on political donations to the point of being meaningless. David Howarth’s amendment aims to deal with this
SOUTH SEA TROUBLE
Argentina’s far right president is causing trouble in the Falklands Islands, and tensions over Antartica could erupt soon. Sarah Green MP paid a visit
HOW TO STEAL A MIDTERM ELECTION
The triumph of democratic socialist Zoran Mamdani as New York’s mayoral race has not been grasped by the Democrat establishment, says Rebecca Tinsley
HEALTHY FREEDOM
Primary care is the foundation to living well and community politics means fighting for GPs and pharmacies, says Helen Maguire MP
CAPITAL GAINS
Sarah Olney MP caused some surprise when she became the first applicant for Lib Dem candidate for mayor of London. She explains why she wants to run the capital
THE FEELING’S MUTUAL
It’s time Liberal Democrats rediscovered the party’s old enthusiasm for mutual utilities and businesses as a better option than Labour statism, says Paul Hindley
CONTINUOUS PROCESS
Andy Burnham’s media skills hide a prime minister little different from his predecessor and possessed of few liberal sympathies, says Rosemary Runswick
TWO OF A KIND
The parallels between Ed Davey and Kier Starmer are close and worrying, says Simon Banks
The brutal killing of Ann Widdecombe earlier this year has given us all cause to pause about the state of our politics. We do not yet know why she was killed, and it would be wrong to speculate. But Britain already knows where political violence can lead: Jo Cox. David Amess. Still others whose plots were mercifully foiled by the police.
In a previous era of political murder and intimidation, Margaret Thatcher said after the Brighton bombing:
“We must never never never be stopped; never be stopped from going among the people by a few men of violence, because that is what they want, and if they stop us democracy would not be able to continue.”
As Caron Lindsay pointed out on this site two years ago, political violence is nothing new. Yet today the danger is not merely that violence happens. It is that we are starting to accept it.
The rot starts with smaller acts. Intimidation becomes ordinary; violence becomes accepted, even mocked. What was forbidden becomes normal.
My withdrawal from restanding as Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Kettering in 2024 was never just about the treatment of my stammer. It was about intimidation, threats and the fear that the next angry encounter might not remain verbal. A fear that too many candidates and councillors have come to expect.
Nine years ago, during a council by-election in Barton Seagrave, a man squared up to me on the doorstep, so angry that his own wife had to hold him back. The cause? My opposition to a Parish Council tax rise to fund a village hall.
Seven years ago, during the 2019 General Election, I was called a “traitor” online and at least one local man fantasised about hanging me from a lamppost. I stopped feeling safe alone in my own hometown. I went to the count in a Christmas jumper, but did my Christmas shopping elsewhere.
Five years ago, while delivering leaflets during the local elections, a man recognised me and chased me down the street. I ran and hid. By then there were places I would not canvass alone, fearing verbal abuse might become physical — as later happened to our own Kevin Lang.
The housing crisis in London needs little introduction. One in 50 Londoners are homeless and living in temporary accommodation organised by their local borough. More than 336,000 households languish on waiting lists for social housing in the capital. Many of London’s 2.7 million private renters face spiralling rents they can barely afford. Young people in our communities find themselves priced out of the places they call home.
London is struggling – but Liberal Democrat boroughs are determined to tackle this crisis.
Housing is about creating sustainable communities, improving lives, and ensuring that local people can continue to live in the areas they know and love. Affordable, high-quality housing brings immense individual and social benefits. Housing policy cuts across the other major challenges of our era, including the state of the economy and the need to address the climate crisis.
If it doesn’t sound too grandiose, I’d suggest housing policy is one of the fundamental building blocks upon which liberal democracy rests.
None of us who remember the terrible time local government endured in the 1980s as budgets were sliced and powers reduced can be unhappy to see greater powers given to local government now. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher’s government looked across the Thames at the unemployment figures draped over the side of the Greater London Council building, and to her it might as well have been the flag of a foreign power raised over her homeland (reminding her after the Falklands episode that there were ‘enemies within’). Away went the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. In practice it was a time of massive centralisation.
The Lib Dems are right to be concerned about where county councils fit into the picture now with the rise of ‘metro mayors’ and whether there’s too much of an urban takeover, but the move towards more control at local level is a welcome one in principle. However, devolution isn’t just about giving power away. It’s also about sharing power.
I’m not sure that Andy Burnham really understands this, despite his recent meeting with the leaders of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and it is with the ‘nations’ outside England that the danger lies. If you think that all you’ve got to do is give powers away (‘Can we control policing in Wales?’ ‘Yes, maybe we can agree to that’) then you will find that eventually whoever receives additional powers will want more until eventually it seems logical to ask for complete control. I’m not saying that this would be a danger in the case of the English regions. Giving Kim McGuiness a budget over transport policies in the North-East is not likely to lead to a demand for an independent Northumbria. But in the case of those parts of the UK where there are already strong forces calling for full independence, it is arguable that those who say ‘giving some powers away is bound to be a foot in the door leading to demands for more and eventually everything’ have a point.
It is for this reason that devolution must have an element of sharing power as well as giving it away. James Dennison’s recent exploration of governing structures in the UK in Lib Dem Voice talks of a change to the second chamber. He suggests ‘around 300 voting members of the Lords elected by first past the post in territorial constituencies, giving the second chamber a deliberately different mandate rooted in place.’ This would be an excellent development giving the House of Lords a distinctive role in bringing together representatives of the regions and nations. It’s maybe a little like the German ‘Bundesrat’ but it doesn’t have to be the same. James also talks about appointed experts adding to the numbers in the second chamber.
Fifty families in Britain hold as much wealth as 34 million people.
This Autumn Conference, join us for A Just Society’s first fringe event, held jointly with Patriotic Millionaires UK. We’ll be asking what that concentration of wealth does to our politics, our media and our society, and where the line should be drawn.
It follows Sunday’s debate on Defending Democracy. That motion names billionaires who use money and media to influence British politics as a threat to our democracy, and proposes caps on donations and spending. Our fringe picks up where the motion stops. Capping donations closes one route from wealth to political power. Wealth on this scale has others: owning media companies and platforms, funding think tanks, paying for lobbying and litigation.
Liberals have always been wary of concentrated power in the state. The question on Monday evening is whether we should be as wary of it in private hands.
The Chancellor faces a difficult Budget.
There is little room to manoeuvre on tax or borrowing. Households and businesses are under enormous pressure. Long-term government borrowing costs have reached their highest level for decades. Yet Britain desperately needs investment.
In an attempt to reassure the markets, John Healey has earnestly pledged his allegiance to the fiscal rules. It’s a 30-year tradition. But, since 2008, Chancellors have increasingly struggled with the choices the rules produce.
We have seen the consequences.
Covid exposed an NHS with too little spare capacity. The energy crisis exposed our dependence on volatile oil markets. The hottest summer ever has demonstrated the threat that global warming poses to our infrastructure.
In an essay published yesterday by the New Economics Foundation, I argue that we need to change the question at the heart of every Budget from “What can we afford to borrow now?” to “What investment do we need to make to be better off tomorrow?”
It’s not an argument for borrowing more. It’s an argument for better spending.
While we must maintain debt discipline through strong rules, there are three fundamental problems with wider fiscal management that I believe we need to fix.
First, is the crude distinction between investment and day-to-day spending. Buying a tank is treated as investment. Training specialists to defend us from cyber attacks is not. We need to broaden how we define investment to recognise the value of people and skills.
“Comment is free, but facts are sacred” wrote The Guardian’s editor CP Scott in 1921. A century and a bit later, the story of Reform UK’s £72 million of donations shows how Westminster has become a battleground of comment where facts get trampled underfoot.
What are the facts? On 25 March, Steve Reed, then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, announced that there would be “an annual £100,000 cap on total political donations” made by any overseas elector. He said the government would apply the restrictions retrospectively to donations received from that date. The changes would be tabled as amendments to the Representation of the People Bill.
The letter said that once the law was in force, political parties would have 30 days to return any donations received on or after 25 March.
And what would happen if an overseas elector moved back to the UK? That was cleared up on 6 July when Samantha Dixon, Minister for Elections, announced that any such person would remain subject to the cap “until they have been resident in the UK for a whole calendar year.”
All pretty clear. The only loose end I can see is that the bill would still allow UK-based donors to donate eye-watering sums and the government is reportedly considering whether to propose a cap on all donations. The Lib Dems have been ahead of the game again in calling for such a cap already.
Meanwhile, months after the proposed law was set out, Reform are claiming that their £36m donations from Ben Delo and Christopher Harbourne are legitimate.
Reform’s Richard Tice said: “These donations are made in accordance with the rules and the regulations, and you’ve now got a hyperventilating hypocrisy from the socialists ruining this country, who are trying to change the rules retrospectively, which is it’s not the fair way, it’s not the British way…”
Did you see what he did there? Tice is of course right to say that the donations are in accordance with the current rules. But then he says the government is “trying to change the rules retrospectively” as if they had done this after the Reform donations, rather than before them – and whistles to his fans by ranting about “socialists” and “the British way”.
The trick is simple. Garnish distortion with a sprig of truth. Then whip up so much heat that emotion drives the story and cold hard facts get left behind.
Eagle-eyed Conference goers this year may spot enlarged Brighton beaches, thanks to a scheme extending them to combat coastal erosion.
Dumping tonnes of rocks is hard work, but the simplicity has a certain beauty. Sadly, the tide is not so easily turned on free speech.
We have all seen it. Octogenarians arrested for holding bits of paper, terrifying examples of trials for tweets, and the unedifying spectacle of ‘free speech absolutists’ banning journalists they do not like from events.
Big Brother Watch has just published a major review: Britain’s Free Speech Problem – How growing restrictions are stifling speech online and offline. It highlights issues including a heady mixture of draconian legislation, partisan hypocrisy and an absence of people willing to stand up for the rights of people with whom they do not agree.
Some of these problems are timeless, but technology means some are genuinely new and require new answers.
Until recently, one could straightforwardly argue that people should have access to more information: anything less was censorship. Then people worked out that with the right algorithm, they could convince people to spend hours in bed watching nonsense, 15 seconds at a time.
Effectively infinite information, presented in an order nobody is directly accountable for, with enough flashing light to tempt even the most performative of readers away from their books.
How free is the public discourse if an algorithm chooses what is seen?
For their next trick, the tech bros invented a novel Google search that seems to talk to us and can sort of do many white collar jobs.
We learned something sad – lots of what we thought made us special is easy to mimic. From the good, like creative writing and music, to the bad, like an intern who swears something is true until you make them check their source: AI can do it all.
As the gap between having an idea and executing it is filled by AI, old notions of who is responsible, and accountable, need reevaluating. For years I have tried to rewrite Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours into an album about Brexit. I am sure Claude could do it for me, but that is definitely not ‘me’ doing it.
Britain has accumulated government without accumulating democratic power. A citizen trying to discover who is responsible for a major decision can now encounter ministers, councils, combined authorities, mayors, regulators, agencies, commissioners and public-private partnerships—often with overlapping responsibilities and no obvious person whom an election can remove.
This is not simply a problem of having too much government. It is a problem of power becoming difficult to see and therefore difficult to control. The liberal answer is neither centralisation nor another wave of institutional invention, but to make the state smaller where possible, stronger where necessary, and democratic wherever public power is exercised. Ten Liberal Democrat policies could begin that process.
Over on the Democracy For Sale site, former Lib Dem MP for Cambridge and electoral commissioner, David Howarth writes about the problem of big money in British politics and suggests three ways to combat it:
The £72 million donation by two crypto-billionaires to Reform UK, a party that just happens to have promoted tax cuts for crypto-billionaires, has prompted some previously complacent political commentators to notice the enormous flaws in Britain’s political funding regime. Those flaws are long-standing and simply stated.
No cap exists on donations to political parties and existing controls on political spending are riddled with loopholes. For example, spending caps only apply in the year that precedes a general election and they fail to include obviously political expenditure, such as employing national party staff.
There’s the heartrending story of Anna Sabine MP over on PoliticsHome’s The House section. Anna tells their Ben Gartside how emergency surgery led to the loss of her voice. The Frome and East Somerset MP says she is returning to Parliament more determined than ever to be heard:
When Anna Sabine finished a routine media appearance on Politics Live in the spring, she returned to her office and received an email that would prove life-changing.
Her parliamentary assistant warned her that they had been sent a “really weird” email, and they couldn’t be sure it was legitimate.
The Brexit referendum was a watershed moment in British politics. Ten years on, the British political landscape is still very much carved out between ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’. Among Remainers, there are also beliefs that the campaign was heavily affected by influence from Russia and far-right figures in the United States. Nigel Farage, one of the leading figures in the Brexit campaign, was recently involved in an alleged case concerning unsolicited donations, and allegations about Reform UK’s links with Russia and the Trump Administration continue to make newspaper headlines.
At the same time, far left politics is similarly highly susceptible to disinformation campaigns. Let us look at China and George Galloway’s campaign as an example. Mr. Galloway hosted ‘Taiwan Untangled’, a documentary TV programme broadcast by China Global Television Network (CGTN). The series blatantly skewed the wording of the United Nations Resolution 2758. That resolution makes no mention of Taiwan’s sovereignty, let alone China’s claim on Taiwan, and yet China tries claim it does through misrepresentation. In effect, firstly, CGTN has used Galloway as a speaker from the UK to try to show its citizens that Europeans support Beijing’s views. And, secondly, the CCP has sought to promote its ‘One China policy’ in Europe.
But mere suspicion is not healthy for a democracy. We must rise to the challenge posed the breadth and depth of foreign interference in British politics.
We need a single guiding point that policy, communication, and a revitalised brand can flow from. Without losing the breadth of values that makes us strong
Most liberals and Liberal Democrats have instincts – and often detailed, powerful, personal articulations – for why they are liberal and/or Lib Dems. Our constitution is also an impressive illustration, as is the history of liberal ideas and achievements. We have many pillars: internationalism, environmentalism, liberty, equality, community, and more – all working together. But that breadth which is so often a strength also presents a struggle: communicating a single, clear vision or “north star” that means the public instinctively and immediately know who we are and what we stand for.
What liberals and Liberal Democrats often lack is a single guiding beacon for both storytelling and policymaking.
The idea of a platform – for every individual to thrive and live their own version of a best life – is increasingly my own personal way of understanding my progressive/social liberal politics… as well as what policy and decision making can ultimately strive toward. It works well on the doorstep. But that needs a conversation to hold long enough that the platform idea becomes natural enough to weave in.
There’s something about the platform that still isn’t quite boiled down enough to make me confident in it as the finished idea. That’s where I’d love some help from anyone who either resonates with or sees the problem in this idea – alongside everyone who has already helped shape it, of course – thank you and we’ll talk more in Brighton!
A single framing for liberalism: A platform to live your version of a best life.
From that platform comes three core concepts: freedom, fairness, and opportunity. From these our broader value set and policy can flow in all its forms.
A platform sees freedom really mean something. That meaningful freedom must come from a solid foundation (NOT a safety net for when something goes wrong) that includes health, housing, environment, purpose, political voice, community, education, and all the elements that allow individuals and communities to thrive under their own definitions.
A platform means a fair society – and goodness knows that could be defined in many ways. For me, and I see for many liberals, fairness in many ways means the version of society that works best for the least advantaged. A society that you would think is fair not knowing who you were in it (the “veil of ignorance”).
Opportunity that feels real. Underpinned by all the foundations of meaningful freedom… again: health, housing, environment, purposeful work, political voice, community, education, and more.
What a platform is not…