William Wallace writes: Spending Cuts or Tax Increases? Can we avoid the choice?

One of the oddest things about British and American politics is that it remains acceptable to politicians and right-wing commentators to call for cuts in overall taxation without specifying what cuts in spending programmes should accompany them.  After successive Republican Administrations in the USA that have cut taxes and then found it difficult to make comparable reductions in spending programmes, the Trump Administration is at least being ‘honest’ in publicly slashing major federal programmes – through dishonest in suggesting that tariffs will provide a generous new stream of revenue.  In the UK the Mail and the Telegraph, and the Conservative leadership, still attack every suggestion of higher taxation, as well as many proposals to squeeze current spending. 

The Labour Government boxed itself in before the election by promising not to increase the three largest sources of government revenue.  It over-emphasised the potential for returning to faster growth as a means of increasing revenue; and is therefore stuck with multiple crises in public services, while loading extra demands on Council tax in the hope that local Councils will share the blame. The impact of Trump on the global economy increases the obstacles to growth which we (and other countries) face.  Rachel Reeves is hinting at cuts, not only in welfare benefits but also in key public services and public investment.  So what should Liberal Democrats be saying if the government does delay infrastructure investment and squeeze key services?

Across the board, both the public investment needed to revive the UK economy and the public services which support our society are in acute crisis.  The Financial Times last week published a horrifying account of the physical state of some of the hospitals included in Boris Johnson’s unfunded rebuilding programme.  The UK spends much less on government support for research and development than many of its competitors.  The promised AI supercomputer (underfunded in Conservative treasury calculations) has been put on hold; financial support for Ph.D students in STEM subjects, crucial for future innovation, has been shrunk.  The state of Britain’s prisons, after years of under-investment and overcrowding, is appalling.  We have been promised an additional 6500 teachers for schools, but school budgets have not been increased enough to pay for the much-need pay increase for existing teachers, let alone to recruit more.  Similarly we have been promised more neighbourhood police and Community Support Officers, without yet the funding to keep them in place.  We all know that local governments are in desperate financial straits; that social care is a neglected area that is dragging the NHS down with it; and we need to increase our defence budget substantially.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 12 Comments
Advert

Trump, Taxes & Tariffs

Those of us who know of Henry George and his “Single Tax” on land values may not know that he was also against tariffs. I didn’t until in 1998 I was appointed Chief Executive at the Henry George Foundation (HGF) of Great Britain and learned that it was part of a federation of such bodies called The International Union of Land Value Taxation and Free Trade (or “The IU” for short). The same year ALTER was founded to revive a Land Campaign in the Lib Dems.

I was reminded how George’s thinking linked tax and tariffs when reading a piece by Jonty Bloom in my favourite weekly journal The New European recently. 

I am neither an economist but it seems common sense that tariffs hurt the countries which impose them most. Bloom’s piece reminds us that the inter-war Great Depression was made far worse when America’s action in isolation to impose tariffs was met tit-for-tat by most other trading nations.

In contrast, Trump Mark 1’s tariffs post-2020 were largely ignored by the rest of the world and hence largely only affected America: more jobs were lost there than in countries hit by tariffs.

The reason, according to Professor Michael Gasiorek, is that tariffs raise the imposing county’s domestic price of imports of a product. This allows its domestic producers to increase their price to just below the newly raised price of the imports, assuming the importer doesn’t absorb the tariff. “Capitalist greed”, according to current logic, ensures that prices rise for consumers in the tariff raising country, thereby reducing spending power and/or causing inflation there. 

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 5 Comments

Why populism thrives and how we beat it – Part 2

In Part 1, I introduced some ideas about how we beat populism, focusing on immigration. Today, I am going to look at the NHS, the economy and our political system.

Saving the NHS from Populist Scare Tactics

The NHS is under siege, and the populists love it. They use its struggles to push their own agenda, claiming that the solution is to privatise services or cut back on waste. But the NHS isn’t failing because of inefficiency or because too many people are using it. It is failing because governments have underfunded it for years, forcing doctors and nurses to work under impossible conditions while patients wait months for treatment.

The Conservatives say they are investing in the NHS, but in reality, they have allowed it to be slowly privatised, handing contracts to private companies and driving doctors out of the system. Reform UK claims it will get rid of NHS “red tape” but offers no actual funding or plan to stop the crisis. If we want to save our health service, we need real investment, not slogans. That means recruiting and retaining more doctors and nurses by increasing pay and improving working conditions. It means guaranteeing a GP appointment within a week, so people don’t turn to A&E out of desperation. It means properly integrating social care with the NHS so elderly and vulnerable patients aren’t left stranded in hospital beds because there’s nowhere for them to go. It means shifting the focus to prevention, tackling long-term health issues like obesity and mental illness before they become crises.

Fighting Economic Populism – Real Prosperity, Not Empty Promises

Nothing fuels populist anger more than economic insecurity. Wages are stagnant, housing is unaffordable, and bills keep rising. People feel like they’re working harder for less while the rich get richer. And they’re right—because the system is rigged.

Reform UK’s answer is to slash taxes and cut regulations. The Conservatives promise tax cuts too, despite 14 years of economic stagnation. Both parties push the idea that lower taxes will magically create jobs and growth, but we’ve seen this experiment fail again and again. Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing for working people.

The real solution is an economy that rewards hard work, not just wealth. That means raising wages so that people earn enough to live, not just survive. It means fixing the housing crisis so young people can afford a home again. It means backing small businesses so local entrepreneurs can thrive instead of being crushed by big corporations. It means making the tax system fairer, so billionaires and multinationals pay their share instead of shifting the burden onto working people.

Restoring Trust – Cleaning Up the Corrupt Political System

Posted in News | Tagged , , , and | 3 Comments

David Chadwick stands up for coalfield communities

Last Thursday, I was working from home with BBC Parliament going in the background. I was only half listening but was impressed by a speech by a Welsh MP who had real empathy for those communities and told how his great-grandfather died after hours of working waist deep in ice cold water. It was only later on that I realised that this speech was made by our own David Chadwick.

According to my husband who spent the first 20 years of his career working in various collieries around the country, David’s remarks had been going down exceptionally well with former miners on some online forums.

Here is the speech in full:

I am proud to represent several former coalmining communities. Abercraf, Cwmtwrch, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Ystradgynlais, Pontardawe and Rhos are just a few of the proud former mining communities that I represent. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this debate.

Across Wales, nearly 800,000 people—about a third of the population—live in former coalmining towns and villages, and I am very proud to come from a Welsh mining family. I will never forget my grandfather taking me to see his father’s grave in Maesteg cemetery. His father died aged 34 after working up to his waist in ice-cold water for several hours. The men and women of our coalfield communities made huge sacrifices to power this country, so it is right that we are discussing the future of their communities today.

To cut a long story short, Welsh mining communities have been left behind by successive Governments. Margaret Thatcher’s policies—the closure of our major industry in Wales and the failure to replace it with anything else—have left lasting scars. It is not hard to see why people in south Wales wonder whether their Governments are listening to them. This Parliament is an open goal for the Government to repair the damage done by Thatcherism. The Conservative party squandered many of its 13 years in power, carrying on with a London-centric banker-friendly form of growth that means younger generations have to leave for the cities, as my mum did 30 years ago. This Government must not repeat the mistake.

Across the former south Wales coalfields, the economic reality is dire. Wages are lower than the national average, job growth is sluggish and unemployment remains high. In fact, in the south Wales coalfields, there are just 46 jobs for every 100 working-age people. Nearly 800,000 people—a third of the entire population of Wales—live in those areas, which is why they are so important to the Welsh economy. Wales is £10,000 a head poorer than England, and fixing our former coalmining communities is key to fixing the Welsh economy. Coalfield communities deserve to be at the forefront of economic renewal. People in coalfield communities want the Government to show them that they matter. They are desperate for change.

Posted in News | Tagged , and | 2 Comments

Moving beyond tactical votes: Taking the fight to Labour – everywhere.

The following article is primarily concerned with how we approach Labour voters nationally and locally (outside Labour-facing seats). I have much respect for the many local parties, whether in Liverpool or Southwark, who have taken a strong fight to Labour and for whom much of the criticism here would not apply.

The 2019 and 2024 General Elections made one thing clear – parties cannot control tactical voting, only voters can, and their decision is circumstantial. The reason it worked in 2024 without alliances but failed in 2019 with pacts is because voters were ready to do it in the former and not the latter, our leaflets simply reminded them we were the best option in certain areas.

Almost all the leaflets targeted at Labour voters in target seats simply had previous results as a reason to vote for us, rarely providing any reasons to differentiate us from Labour. This was to avoid ‘offending’ Labour voters who could tactically vote for us, which was understandable, the persistence of this mindset, however, is not. Our dependence on a pure tactical voting message has left us with a chunk of unsustainable voters (YouGov Oct ’24), we saw how detrimental a reliance on borrowed votes can be with the collapse of the Conservative vote in the Red Wall. 

As the Conservatives continue to struggle with their national revival, often placing third in the polls, and Labour continues with unpopular decisions in government, the notion of tactical voting weakens more and more. A recent poll puts us within 11 percentage points of four other parties. This becomes a greater issue amongst younger generations who are so disillusioned with the establishment (a recent poll showed they’d prefer a dictatorship) that they are more likely to vote on values, not statistical probabilities – especially when those statistics show “this is how things have been in the past.” 

But it is not too late, we can still fully switch these voters to create a more sustainable base, but only if we have the courage to take the fight to Labour.

We must shake off the fear of offending Labour voters for three reasons.

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

ALDC by-election Report, 6th February

Welcome back from the break! There were 6 principal council seats up for election last week: 4 Labour, 1 Conservative, and 1 Lib Dem defence. Labour continues to decline, holding only one seat while losing two to Reform and one to the Conservatives. The Tories also lost their seat to Reform, while the Lib Dems held their only seat of the week.

In Wokingham BC, Cllr Chetna Jamthe secured over 50% of the vote and maintained a healthy lead over second place Conservative candidate. Well done and congratulations to Chetna and the team for the win in the Winnersh ward.

Wokingham BC, Winnersh
Liberal Democrat (Chetna Jamthe): 1177 (52.7%, -7.2%)
CON: 833 (37.3%, +10.7%)
LAB: 126 (5.6%, -5.1%)
GRN: 99 (4.4%, new)

Tendring DC saw another strong performance of the Lib Dems, as Rachael Richards doubles the vote share, but ultimately losing to Reform in The Bentleys & Frating. Well done to Rachael and the local team for the work put into running this great campaign, you’ll get them next time.

Tendring DC, The Bentleys & Frating
Reform: 432 (45.3%, new)
Liberal Democrat (Rachael Richards): 328 (34.4%, +16.8%)
Conservative: 163 (17.1%, -31.4%)
Labour: 31 (3.2%, -7.7%)

Posted in News | Tagged | 3 Comments

Why populism thrives and how we beat it – Part 1

Britain is in crisis. The cost of living is spiralling, wages are stagnant, public services are collapsing, and trust in politics is at an all-time low. People feel powerless, ignored, and abandoned by those in charge. And when that happens, anger grows. Populists know this. They thrive on it. They don’t want to fix the problems; they want to exploit them. They fuel resentment, offering easy scapegoats and simplistic answers that sound good but solve nothing.

They tell people that migrants are stealing their jobs, that the NHS is broken because of bureaucracy, that the economy is failing because of a corrupt elite. Reform UK and the Conservatives both play this game, but they do it in different ways. Reform shouts about “taking our country back” while offering no real policies beyond shutting the borders and slashing taxes. The Conservatives, desperate to hold onto power, mimic Reform’s rhetoric, blaming migration for their own economic failures. Neither of them is interested in solutions. They want people to be angry because it keeps them in business.

It is easy to be angry. I understand why people are furious. They have been let down. They have been promised change again and again, yet nothing ever improves. But anger alone won’t fix Britain. It won’t shorten NHS waiting times or put money in people’s pockets. What we need is leadership that takes that anger and channels it into real action. If we want to defeat populism, we need to do it by delivering real results, not through fear-mongering or division.

Populists succeed when people feel like they have no control over their lives. They feed on frustration and convince people that only drastic, destructive action can change things. Reform UK wants to scrap Net Zero, pull Britain out of international agreements, and introduce a US-style immigration system that would choke businesses of the skilled workers they need. The Conservatives, rather than offering stability, now talk about legal migration caps and sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. These aren’t policies—they’re distractions. The only way to stop them is to address the root causes of their success—economic insecurity, public service decline, and political failure.

Fixing immigration with competence, not chaos

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 9 Comments

Burns night: Celebrating Lib Dem Women

Earlier this week, we published Jenni Lang’s Reply to the Toast to the lassies given at the Edinburgh South Burns Supper.  We said we’d put up Andy Wiliamson’s original toast to which she was replying when we got it. So here it is. Enjoy.

“Thank you everyone for such a wonderful evening. Thank you to Rebecca for organising and for the team working for providing such wonderful service. 

So it has fallen to me to give the Toast to the Lassies this evening. 

I have to start with a confession. I am actually from England. 

That’s not the confession. The confession is that this is my first ever Burns’ night dinner. 

And I confess that I am not an expert in Burns’ poetry. When I first moved to Scotland, I thought ‘mice and men’ were the two main ingredients in haggis. 

I cannot, either, confess to being an expert on women. 

When Rebecca asked me to give this toast, she said they were looking for someone who knew as much about Burns as they did about women, so in that respect, she picked absolutely the right person. 

I would like it also stated on the record, that getting asked to give this toast is something of a poisoned chalice. 

For anyone desiring a political career, it’s quite a tightrope to be asked to walk. To stand in a room full of political women and make jokes about gender differences, armed only with a book of quotes from an eighteenth century farmer. 

So the bar to success in this speech is to make jokes, talk about poetry, and avoid being cancelled. 

Still, in reading Burns, it’s very clear that many of his ideas about women are universal, as are his ideas on politics. Reading some of his poems, it was striking how the world he was describing is not much different from the world of 2025. In the Rights of Women, for example, he says: 

“While Europe’s eye is fix’d on mighty things,

The fate of empires and the fall of kings;

While quacks of State must each produce his plan,

And even children lisp the Rights of Man;

Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,

The Rights of Woman merit some attention.” 

Burns understood – like the proto-Lib Dem that he was – that everything has to be in balance. However, he got a key detail wrong. The opposite of the Rights of Women isn’t the Rights of Man. 

I’m speaking from personal experience here as a married man with two small children. I can personally attest that on occasions I have tested the boundaries of what my wife will put up with. 

Whether it’s telling her that – after a long General election campaign, a Council by-election requires me almost immediately to be away from home in the evenings again. Or times when I’ve stayed in the pub a little later than I probably should have.   

In those instances, it’s very clear that the opposite of Women’s Rights is Men’s Wrongs. 

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | Leave a comment

The speech Ed Davey should have made on the EU

This is the speech Ed should have made on the EU

Hats off to Ed Davey for calling for an EU/UK customs union. Last month’s call rightly attracted media attention, and amounts to the first step towards the Lib Dems re-establishing ourselves as Britain’s most pro-European party.

As a signatory to the Guardian letter in November 2023 which called on the party leadership to make a clearer statement about what the Lib Dems stand for, I give credit to Ed for his EU speech. But he should have gone much further, and framed our party’s position differently. That may sound like an extreme position – after all, leaders have to tread cautiously and take people with them – but let me explain why last month’s stance was too tentative.

All political parties are trying to carve out an identity for themselves against a backdrop of disenchantment that is fuelling populism. In particular, the 18-35 age cohort, which strongly voted Remain, feels no-one speaks for it. It therefore needs an inspiring message, one that is relayed in human, not technocratic, terms.

The case against Brexit is so clear that there are only one-and-a-half reasons not to call for the process of Britain to rejoining the EU to start right now. The main reason is that there was so much divisiveness around the referendum campaign (and afterwards) that everyone is understandably keen to avoid reopening old wounds. But old wounds that have not healed only fester, so the rapprochement with Europe must include an acknowledgement that people are still sore. More importantly, in pursuing that rapprochement we must try to take Leave voters with us – whether they wish they had voted differently or not, they must feel respected, not feel they have lost face.

The half-reason is the fear that going back into the single market will stoke immigration. It’s a valid reason because immigration is high on voters’ concerns, so anything that looks like increasing the number of people entering the UK has the potential to boost support for the populists. But it’s only half a reason because immigration has gone up since we left the EU, not down.

Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Tagged , and | 12 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

Germany

Germany’s Friedrich Merz is gambling big. The leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is gambling with the upcoming elections, his political career, his country’s future and Europe’s future.

He is gambling that by opening—ever so slightly—the door to the German far-right that he will be able to slam it shut again after winning elections on February 23.

Ever since the end of the Second World War the mainstream political parties have maintained a firewall (or “Brandmauer”) between themselves and any far-right, neo-Nazi party that might undermine the political consensus that Germany maintain a sense of contrition for its Nazi past.

In recent years that has meant no coalitions, no deals, no talk of parliamentary support with the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).

Merz blew a hole in the Brandmauer at the end of January when he used AfD votes in the Bundestag to push through the first reading of an anti-immigration bill.  The “Influx Limitation Law” would have tightened existing immigration laws and grant police powers to detain people due for deportation and to deport immigrants at the border.”

The move provoked a stern protest from Merz’s predecessor, elder statesperson Angela Merkel. “I consider it wrong,” she said in a statement, “to abandon this commitment (the firewall) and, as a result to knowingly allow a majority vote with AfD votes in the Bundestag for the first time.”

The vote also sparked off a series of anti-AfD and pro-immigration demonstrations over the weekend.

The result was defeat for the bill at its second reading this week as 12 members of Merz’s own party voted against him.

Merz was unrepentant and has vowed even tougher anti-immigration laws if he wins the election. At the moment his party is predicted to win 30 percent of the vote. The AfD is projected to secure the number two slot with 20 percent of the vote while the opposition coalition of the Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals is likely to come in third with 29 percent.

Merz is gambling that his politics will steal some of the AfD’s far-right clothes and push up his share of the vote. But he also risks losing the centrist votes that were secured by Angela Merkel’s moderate positions. And his defeat at the second reading undermines Merz’s leadership of the CDU and runs the risk of pushing Germans concerned about immigrants into the arms of the AfD.

Europe

“Europe,” Trump recently warned, “you are next.”

The newly-elected American president was referring to those “lovely, lovely tariffs” that he is imposing left, right and centre, especially on those who dare to disagree with him.

Trump has never liked the EU. With half a billion reasonably well-off people, it is the world’s largest trading bloc, and trading bloc’s exist to protect the economic interests of their members, and they use the leverage that their size gives them to negotiate the best possible trading terms.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 7 Comments

The Full Council meeting and finding a purpose in political life

Although it is tough at times, I still really enjoy my role as a Councillor. It is not easy to combine it with my full-time job, all the other commitments, which include the hardest role of all, being a parent.

It is such a privilege to hold any public office. Being able to serve the community, try to act and make it a better place for everyone, is a blessing and I treat it with enormous respect. However, I suppose like many of my colleagues, there are moments, when I question myself and wonder whether it would be better to give it all up, do something else as the opportunities to make a difference can be achieved in so many ways.

This week, on Monday night, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillors were discussing the budget, which is always a difficult subject, particularly now when the public finances are under a lot of pressure. Where to save? What else could be done to make the work of the Council more efficient? How can we all contribute to a meaningful debate without scoring cheap political points? Often, these are meetings, which I often struggle with the most. How genuine are we when making these decisions? How often do we reject an idea, only because it might be coming from opposite benches? Do we really try to collaborate when it matters most?

Although the budget has been set this week, the Council had to make a lot of painful decisions, some of which are driven by national legislation. No one wants to see cuts to services or reduction in local provision. However, I am pleased that Monday night felt “civil”. I bumped into the Council Officer during the week, who said that he found the debate pleasant and relatively productive. I actually felt that for the first time in quite a while, we actively listened to each other. We had a constructive discussion about Council finances. I am also happy that we were able to challenge our positions and scrutinise our legislative ideas.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 1 Comment

Observations of an Expat: Death of the Two-State Solution

The two-state solution is dead. Or, at the very least, it has been reduced to the one and a half state solution. But then the other Palestinian half is likely to be killed off in the next few weeks.

The concept of a Jewish and Palestinian state living side by side cannot work without American backing. No other state has the international clout or sufficient leverage over Israel.

The Palestinian state was envisaged as existing in two distinct halves—the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Donald Trump’s proposal that the US take control of Gaza, move out all the Palestinians, bulldoze it and turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” means that the US has in one press conference eliminated the Gazan half from the political equation.

The other half is expected to soon follow suit. Trump has promised a statement on the West Bank “in a matter of weeks.” In his first term he declared Israeli settlement was no longer—in his opinion—a breach of international law. He also recognised Jerusalem—which is part of the West Bank—as the capital of Israel. In his second term he quickly lifted Biden-imposed sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers.

It is extremely likely that he will announce approval of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-held wish to annex the West Bank. That means an estimated 5 million Palestinians would be forced out of their homes. Where do they go?

“They should go to new homes,” said President Trump. “Someplace where they live and not die.” Specifically, the president has suggested Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and possibly Saudi Arabia. They have all responded with an emphatic: “No way!!!”

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

An opportunity to help shape party policy

Lib Dem members decide on policy at Conference. Some of the policy motions are submitted by members or by local parties, but some of motions are the result of a quite long drawn out process carried out by Policy Working Groups.  Typically these working groups spend around 18 months gathering evidence and ideas and then carrying out informal consultations, before putting together a detailed report and Conference motion. There is more information about how all this works here.

Every so often the Federal Policy Committee puts out a call for members of new Policy Working Groups. They are looking for people with expertise in the areas of interest – as professionals, academics, service users or with other relevant life experiences.

Currently the Federal Policy Committee is trying to recruit members to two new working groups, one looking at Mental Health and the other at High Streets and Town Centres.

Posted in News | Tagged | 1 Comment

Nimbyism: direct participatory democracy in action

On Saturday 1 February, scores of people in the West Yorkshire town of Sowerby Bridge attended a protest rally against a proposed small waste incinerator plant for commercial use. The proposal was approved by Calderdale Council last November despite the previous application having been overturned via judicial review and the granting of the permit overturned by the High Court.

If the incinerator were to be constructed, it would have myriad detrimental effects upon the immediate community. With Sowerby Bridge situated in the Calder Valley, the proposed stack’s height of 96 metres would mean that pollutants would be emitted at the same level as surrounding communities at higher altitudes and the tree canopy of ancient woodland. And as the incinerator is due to be constructed on the bank of the River Ryburn, the site may fall victim to flooding, as was witnessed by Sowerby Bridge in 2015.

Local residents understand the dangers that the incinerator would pose to their community which is why they came out in force. This is not a partisan issue. In addition to Liberal Democrat councillors (and the former Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Ashley Evans and Sue Holdsworth, the rally was attended by representatives of the Green Party and the National Education Union. Despite approval being given by a Labour-controlled council, Labour figures such as Cllr Simon Ashton of Sowerby Bridge and Halifax MP Kate Dearden spoke out against the proposal.

Nimbyism is often derided as simple obstructionism, motivated by a gainsay resistance to change or a desire not to jeopardise a privileged situation. Prime examples of this would be denying the building of new houses or renewable energy infrastructure to prevent a fall in property values.

However, the cry of ‘not in my backyard’ can easily be made against proposals that would have clearly deleterious impacts upon local communities, as can be argued with the Sowerby Bridge incinerator or fracking or nuclear waste repositories.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 17 Comments

Why the Liberal Democrats Should Champion a CANZUK Alliance

As a Liberal Democrat and someone deeply invested in international cooperation, I believe the concept of CANZUK—strengthening ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK—deserves serious consideration within our party. This isn’t just about nostalgia for a shared past; it’s about unlocking practical, forward-thinking opportunities that align with our values of internationalism, economic prosperity, and human rights.

I want to explore how a CANZUK alliance could benefit the UK and why the Liberal Democrats should be leading the conversation on this issue.

Economic Growth and Trade Expansion

One of the most compelling reasons for strengthening CANZUK ties is the economic potential. The combined GDP of these four countries exceeds $7.5 trillion, making them a formidable economic bloc. Unlike many existing trade agreements, a CANZUK trade partnership would be built on a foundation of mutual trust, shared legal systems, and compatible regulatory standards.

Post-Brexit, the UK needs to reimagine its place in global trade. While we should maintain strong ties with Europe, there is also an opportunity to build new economic relationships with countries that share our language, governance structures, and business culture. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand already have strong trade ties with one another, and deepening our involvement in this network could create fresh opportunities for UK businesses.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) would benefit the most from easier access to new markets. If we establish streamlined trade agreements with these nations, businesses could export their goods and services with fewer tariffs and bureaucratic hurdles. The Liberal Democrats have always championed policies that help small businesses thrive, and a CANZUK trade partnership would do just that.

Freedom of Movement and Talent Exchange

Another major pillar of the CANZUK proposal is the free movement of people between the four countries. This could be a transformative policy, allowing UK citizens to live, work, and study in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with fewer restrictions.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 11 Comments

Never let the con merchants off the hook

“You must not tell people that they have been conned” appears to be an assumption among many politicians.  However buyer’s remorse is clearly settling in with regard to Brexit and it remains to be seen how long it takes before Republican voters begin to feel the pain that they never contemplated during November’s US election campaign.

It is worth remembering that none of us gets through life without being fooled by somebody. Our most recent experience was with the bunch of cowboys who moved house for us last year. It all happened because the people who did well for us in the previous move appear to have shunted us on to another outfit who were part of a series of mergers and franchise operations. We were far too trusting.

A long time ago when I lived behind a door that was often knocked on by low-level conmen asking for money, I steadily learned to suss out the frauds and my ultimate triumph was when I said to one “Let’s cut out the crap and I’ll take you round to the pub and buy you a pint.” He was so shocked that he beat a hasty retreat and was never seen again. Perhaps we need a bit more sideways thinking when dealing with political fraudsters!

Of course being had makes you feel stupid. What you need is not blame but sympathy and support. Being mealy mouthed about the perpetrators simply leaves them to take their conmanship to another level. In western democracies, if you want to fool a majority of voters you have to fool an allegedly serious political party first. Then you need a coalition of people who might vote for you for a whole variety of reasons. Appeals to some of the worst elements of human nature can seal the deal for some. Both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson did their bit towards making serial lying legitimate. Some people wished they could “get away with what he gets away with”. There is an element of envy here which is a bit like people living in poverty not having a problem with millionaires – a sentiment that is nurtured by large chunks of the gambling industry.

Posted in Op-eds | 7 Comments

Celebrating our Lib Dem men

One of the social highlights of Lib Demmery in Edinburgh is the Edinburgh South Burns Supper, an annual evening of mirth celebrating Scotland’s national Bard Robert Burns.

Previous highlights include, and I kid you not, Alex Cole-Hamilton, dressed as a mouse acting out the part as To a Mouse was read out.

The evening usually starts with the top table being piped in. Then we have the address to the Haggis. The “great chieftain of the pudding race” is piped in and, this year, Rebecca Wright gave a spirited rendition of Burns’ To a Huggis. I’m a bit of a heretic here because I much prefer white pudding to haggis, but never mind.

There are three main speeches in the traditional Burns Supper. The Immortal Memory is a personal tribute to Rabbie Burns, this year delivered by Susan Murray our new MP for Mid Dunbartonshire who had found out that she had a distant relationship to Burns.

The Toast to the Lassies at Burns Suppers used to basically be a riot of misogyny. In fact, at one time the only women allowed near a Burns Supper were the ones serving the food. In modern times, however, the Toast and its reply (now made by a woman) has become genuine comedy.

The Toast to the Lassies was made by Andy Williamson. He has said that he’ll send it over and when he does, I’ll put it up.

The reply was delivered by Scottish Party Convener Jenni Lang and it celebrated the men in our party who she had loosely divided into four general categories. She’d really like your help in identifying some more. Her speech is reproduced here with her permission.

I actually had to go before she started speaking or I’d have missed my train home so I read this for the first time on Monday and laughed so much I feared for my ribs. I found myself categorising my friends who were there. This includes Jenni’s husband Kevin, whom I am sure many of you will know.

Anyway, enjoy, and please feel free to add some more. But remember this is a celebration of our colleagues. Be as generous and funny as Jenni has been.

Good Evening, and firstly, thank you so much to Andy for his kind words, and thank you for inviting me to make the reply of behalf of the lassies tonight.

I have been giving a great deal of reflection over the past week to what I would say tonight in response to the laddies in the room. I realised that this year will be my 25th anniversary of becoming involved with the party. In that quarter of a century, I have been a member of staff, seen us be part of two different Government coalitions with varying success. I’ve sat on committees, chaired committees, and now I’m Convener of the party. 

And I started thinking about the types of Liberal Democrat men I have met over the years, and I realised, that there were some distinct groupings that many of these men fall into, tribes if you like. Or if I was channelling my inner Meghan Markle right now, archetypes….

So I thought tonight I would highlight a few of my favourite Lib Dem male archetypes. Now, this isn’t an exhaustive list because I only have a few minutes. But ladies, you can feel free to add more later.

First up…..

The Liberal Gentlemen

I have a very soft spot for this group of men. The elder statesmen of the party. The ones who originally joined the Liberal Party long before the merger and who, even now, only begrudgingly accept the fact we still have those pesky Social Democrats hanging around. Always polite, unfailingly charming, deeply liberal to their core.

These gentlemen can still remember bringing more chairs into the Liberal Assemblies of yore. They have an elephantine memory of the history of the party and will happily pass on this knowledge to all who will listen. 

The song ‘Lloyd George knew my father’ was not so much written for them….but more written for their children written for them, and one or two of them may have met Lloyd George themselves!

We often talk about national treasures, these gentlemen are our Party Treasures, often the Party Treasur-ers making them one of my favourite archetypes. 

Next up…..

The Policy Geek 

Yes, the policy geeks. They may have a niche issue they are keen to get through as party policy. Even better if it gets into the  manifesto. Maybe they have personal obsession with nuclear proliferation, or decriminalising drugs, or protecting bees, or the structural funding of local authorities to tackle potholes. 

These are the guys who will dedicated their time to causes which would likely result in a march and with with a mantra – “What do we want? An asymmetrical of federalism. When do we want it? – in due course!

They are the people who keep the party’s policy gears ticking over, and without some of their far out proposals, conference would just be a slew of top down edicts from the leadership. And as Liberals, none of us want that.

A sub grouping of the Policy Geek is the  Party Constitutional Wonk, which is even more niche. Vitally important to the correct functioning of the party, but can be irritating when they point out that whatever you are trying to get done is constitutionally unsound. 

They are the detail guys. The ones who can tell you exactly what is in Section K, paragraph 2….without even having the constitution in front of them. The ones who would put in an amendment at conference to say ‘On line 42 delete ‘ampersand’ and replace with the word ‘and’’.  And yes friends, that’s a true story….

The constitutional wonks, are the next level – they are the upper class who look down on the mere policy geeks. As someone who regularly chairs conference debates, there is occasionally a heart stopping moment when one of these guys rises in their seat saying ‘Point of order chair’ before invoking a niche part of the standing orders. Irritatingly they are often right.

What I would say is that these wonks can be particularly effective in council chambers in using the standing order process to derail mad motions. So I can highly recommend you putting one or two up as council candidates, and they can really scratch that itch in a way that is helpful.

Next, the one that no local party can do without….

The Local Hero

Now, every local party has, or should have a local hero. Someone who really – perhaps showing the ultimate wisdom – has no interest in ever getting elected, but who turns out to every action day, or on canvassing sessions. Maybe they get stuck into office clerical work, printing and distributing leaflets to deliverers. They are readily identifiable by constantly smelling of riso ink. They are the backbone of our party and we could not function without them. 

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 5 Comments

Abuse victims to get chance of legal redress

Today I’m proud of the work I have been doing for the unheard, marginalised ignored and abused members of our society. Read on.

During the last few years I have admired the work of Shirley Oaks Survivors Association (SOSA).

They represented hundreds of people who were abused whilst in the care of Lambeth Council.

SOSA was able to get over £140m from Lambeth Council in compensation paid to those affected by the Shirley Oaks abuse scandal.

I sat and listened to the stories of those affected by sexual abuse. A friend of mine told me at the age of 35, that he was abused by one of our teachers at school, one by one others came forward. I felt pig sick that I never knew anything about it. They suffered in silence.

I was determined that people who committed crimes like this should not hide any longer.

Working with SOSA in their endeavour to get the 3 year time bar status lifted was time consuming, however, made easier by knowing that perpetrators could no longer hide behind the three year rule.

Those police officers involved in avoiding justice and the families who were kept out of the Lambeth legal redress scheme can now have their day in civil court.

Whilst I must thank the hard work of Dr Raymond Stevenson & Ms Lucia Hinton of SOSA, it has been a cross Party affair.

The agenda is not pretty or fashionable, a lot of people stay clear of it, however, when you know close friends who have been abused and not been able to communicate it to you for over 20-25 years it focuses your mind.

I must also thank other people that made this ground breaking day happen:

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 16 Comments

Introducing Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine

Lib Dems with an eye on recruitment may have spotted an interesting new job ad in circulation:  Public Affairs, Communications and Administration Officer for the Lib Dem Friends of Palestine. So, who are the Lib Dem Friends of Palestine (LDFP), what do we do, and in what ways could Lib Dems help make a difference now for Palestinians and a political crisis that has threatened global stability for so many decades?

LDFP was founded some 20 years ago for all party members interested in supporting justice for Palestine. We believe that the Palestinian people have the right to live in an independent state of Palestine, just as the Israeli people have the right to live in the independent state of Israel, based on the 1967 borders. To achieve that, Israel must end its illegal occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. We call on all party members to support this aim, both in principle and by the actions we take, and we actively lobby for it within Parliament and in the wider political sphere.

The principles behind this position align with the core values of the Liberal Democrat Party, namely liberty, equality, democracy, community, human rights and internationalism. We believe support for the aspirations – and rights – of the Palestinians is a very natural fit and sits well with our work with our liberal allies worldwide in calling for justice and peace for the Palestinian people.

We also recognise Britain’s special historic relationship with, and assurances given, to Palestine and the Palestinians. We believe this gives our country a particular responsibility to recognise a Palestinian state, to stand by the rights of its people and strive for a peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 12 Comments

Calum Miller: Trump’s proposal for Gaza “bizarre” and “dangerous”

I’m sure many of us will be watching the television in absolute horror this morning. It is absolutely nauseating to watch Donald Trump talk about the ethnic cleansing of a people as if it is a normal thing to do. We should not tolerate it and we need to all it out for what it is.

Three Lib Dem MPs have spoken out this morning.

Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesperson Calum Miller has emphatically condemned Trump’s plan, calling it “bizarre” and ‘dangerous”.

He said:

Donald Trump’s proposal for Gaza is bizarre but also dangerous. It shows casual disregard for the rights and aspirations of Palestinians and threatens the basis for peace at this fragile moment.

The UK cannot be silent – we must make clear that this proposal is damaging, wrong and would amount to a severe breach of international law.

Posted in Europe / International and News | Tagged , , , and | 20 Comments

Christine Jardine: Labour needs to deliver more for Scotland to beat SNP

In her Scotsman column this week, Christine Jardine has a stark message for Labour: get your backsides into gear and do more for Scotland or you are toast at the Holyrood elections in 2026. The last thing Scotland needs is another 5 years of the SNP, so we’d better hope they take heed.

Ahead of the General election last July, it looked like Labour were on course to form a Scottish Government too.

Unfortunately, with cuts to Winter Fuel Payment, the National Insurance rise and threatened benefit cuts, they have blown the goodwill that propelled them to 37 Scottish seats at …

Posted in LibLink | Tagged , , , and | Leave a comment

Standing firm: defying Trump’s tariff war and protecting our allies

Yesterday morning, I woke up to the stark reality that Donald Trump has once again shot himself in the foot, imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and potentially the European Union. This move is a clear sign that Britain, despite the naïve optimism of some on the far-right or within the Reform Party, will not be spared. In the long run, we too will face tariffs, and we risk becoming a client nation under Trump’s empire-like vision of America. Unfortunately for Trump, he seems to idolize the likes of Caligula, the Roman emperor who waged war against the sea. I’m surprised he hasn’t sent his armies to conquer the ocean yet.

Britain, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and other sovereign nations must now band together and stand firm against this kind of bullying. We cannot allow even an inch of European land to fall under the influence of American tariffs and policies. We must not let Canada, our steadfast ally, become the 51st state of the United States. We must empower our colleagues in Canada and stand by their side.

As free, sovereign countries that cherish liberal democracy, we do not undermine each other. We do not bow down to bullies. If Donald Trump and his supporters wish to shape America into a nation more tolerant of far-right ideologies, then so be it. But we will not be bullied by countries that, while influential, are taking a dangerous path.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 10 Comments

New Zealand and proportional representation: what there is to learn from it, and what there isn’t

The debate on proportional representation in the Commons last Thursday was all fairly predictable, with few Conservatives bothering to turn up, and Labour MPs as likely to defend first past the post as not, but it was interesting that while several speakers mentioned the experience of other countries, usually in apocalyptic tones like Israel, none mentioned New Zealand.

In an article for the politics.co.uk website in 2023, Tim Bale, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London, once a New Zealand voter himself, advised advocates of proportional representation in the UK to manage their expectations of it; namely that if they think it will benefit the Liberal Democrats, they should think again, if New Zealand’s experience is anything to go by.

The problem with this is that comparing New Zealand to the UK is not really comparing like with like. Granted, New Zealand is a Commonwealth common law Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, but it is much smaller in population, with a much smaller parliament even for its size, and a single-chamber one at that; few remember that an upper house, the appointed Legislative Council, existed before 1950, the only purpose its chamber now serves is for MPs, summoned by Black Rod from the House of Representatives, to attend the Speech from the Throne.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 22 Comments

3-7 February 2025 – this week in the Lords

Another busy week awaits in the Lords and so, without further ado…

There’s a bucketful of Liberal Democrat activity this week, and we’ll start with Oral Questions. On Tuesday, Mike Storey will be asking the Government what steps they are taking to deal with mental health problems in primary schools, whilst on Wednesday, William Wallace seeks clarity on Government plans for changes they are considering for citizenship education in schools to accompany proposals to reduce the voting age to 16. Alison Suttie quizzes the Minister on UK assessment of Russian interference in Moldovan politics on Thursday.

There are two Liberal Democrat-led Short Debates, with John Lee querying Government plans to encourage first-time investors in the stock market on Monday, and Olly Grender asking the Government what steps they are taking to ensure that fines paid by water companies are used to repair the damage done by sewage pollution.

The Bills up for debate this week include:

Posted in News and Parliament | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , and | Leave a comment

Defending democracy in a rapidly changing world

I hate to admit it; but I am becoming increasingly obsessed and weirdly fascinated, at the same time, with the happenings in the USA. At my time of life it can’t be good for my health! I know I ought to be more concerned about what is happening over here; but knowing how much we in the West depend, for better or for worse, on an outward looking magnanimous USA and knowing also how vulnerable the U.K. is as a minnow in a pool dominated by a few powerful sharks, I fear for our democratic system’s future as the drip …

Posted in Op-eds | 20 Comments

Welcome to my day: 3 February – “this is all going to end in tears, isn’t it?”

Our Foreign Affairs Editor, Tom Arms, must be wondering whether or not he should be writing more than just a weekly column at the moment, as the American experiment with destroying its own government and the international world order at the same time unwinds. Levying 25% tariffs on your closest neighbours on the premise that they are failing to prevent fentanyl from crossing their borders into the United States, when just 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the northern border in 2024, merely makes it clear that this is intended to be a “punishment beating” for the “uppity Canadians” in particular. And given that the Mexican Government has been working with its American counterparts to reduce illegal migration with some success, you wonder what the Trump administration actually expects Mexico to do.

Rory Stewart makes the interesting point that, if Trump and his minions are going to tear down the network of international agreements and treaties because they can, how can any other nation hope to rely on the 800-pound gorilla that is America. And, perhaps more to the point, how can a Starmer-led Labour administration seriously countenance a trade deal with the United States given that Trump has now torn up his second North American Free Trade Agreement in eight years, the second of which he signed himself?

It does make Ed Davey look more and more like a prophet every day, even if Starmer, Reeves and Cooper all make a great show of denying him.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 7 Comments

1-2 February 2025 – the weekend’s press releases

  • Davey: Chancellor must order economic forecasts on UK-EU customs union ahead of Spring Statement
  • Cooper ruling out youth mobility scheme is “short-sighted and bitter blow to young people”
  • Davey: PM must “drop his red line” on Customs Union as he meets EU leaders
  • Scottish Liberal Democrats table amendment to erase SNP power grab “for good”

Davey: Chancellor must order economic forecasts on UK-EU customs union ahead of Spring Statement

Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey has called on the Chancellor Rachel Reeves to order an official analysis on the economic benefits of a UK-EU customs union, ahead of March’s Spring Statement.

He said that families and businesses worried about the state of the economy and public finances deserve “full transparency about the benefits that a closer trading relationship with Europe would bring.”

In a letter to the Chancellor, Ed Davey said the Treasury should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to analyse the impact a customs deal with the EU would have for the UK economy and public finances. He said these updated forecasts should be made public as part of the OBR’s forecasts due to be published alongside the Spring Statement on 26 March.

The Liberal Democrat Leader also urged Keir Starmer to begin talks on a UK-EU Customs Union in his meeting with EU leaders in Brussels expected on Monday 3rd February, with an initial first step of agreeing to join the pan-European customs scheme (PEM).

The OBR has previously forecast that the UK economy is set to take a 4% hit over 15 years due to the impact of Brexit. According to a recent study conducted by the London School for Economics, the Conservative’s Brexit deal has led to a £27 billion drop (6.4%) in the value of UK goods exports to the EU.

Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey commented:

The Chancellor is tying herself in knots trying to think up new ways to grow our economy. But there’s a solution right under her nose: a new UK-EU customs union deal that boosts trade for British businesses and raises vital tax revenue for our public services.

It’s a no-brainer. After years of damage thanks to the Conservatives’ botched trade deal with the EU, this would improve access to our biggest trading partner and put rocket boosters under economic growth.

Families and businesses around the country are deeply worried about the state of the economy and our public services. They deserve full transparency from the government about the benefits that a closer trading relationship with Europe would bring.

Keir Starmer should use his meeting with EU leaders on Monday to fire the starting gun on agreeing a new customs partnership with Europe. There is no time to waste in fixing the damage done by the Conservatives, cutting red tape for businesses and strengthening our hand with Donald Trump.

Cooper ruling out youth mobility scheme is “short-sighted and bitter blow to young people”

Responding to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper ruling out any plans for Labour to negotiate a youth mobility scheme with the EU during an interview with Trevor Phillips this morning, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Calum Miller MP said:

Posted in News, Press releases and Scotland | Tagged , , , , , and | 1 Comment

Ed Davey on Kuenssberg: EU/UK customs union would do more for economy than anything Government is doing

Ed Davey had his first Sunday morning outing on the media of 2025 with an interview on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

As we’ve hit half a decade since the awful reality of Brexit, the conversation was mostly about our desire to see a UK/EU Customs Union to get our economy growing again. He said:

What I am arguing is if we can have a UK EU Customs Union we can tear down the trade barriers that the Conservatives put up for our exporters and get that growth far more quickly than anything Rachel Reeves and Labour are saying at the moment

Ed did well to get that point across. If I had to nit-pick, I’d have given a few examples of how our exporters have been done over by the crappy deal we have at the minute. I’d have mentioned the £4 billion that Brexit has taken out of our economy and how getting into a customs union could get at least some of that back and help jobs and growth here.

He could also have highlighted the polls which suggest that only a third of people think that Brexit has been a success. Clearly the public know fine that they have been completely done over and are open now to attempts to repair the damage.

I might also have dropped the spectre of Donald Trump inspired economic warfare in as well and how we and the EU would be in much better shape to deal with that if we worked together. I mean, we have a US administration whose members seem to want to make things as difficult as possible for our Government to achieve even its own modest aims to boost their political allies on the extreme right wing.

I’ve summarised the interview below. What do you think?

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , and | 5 Comments

Poverty and inequality? Not apparent priorities for this Labour government

However,  our party is committed to poverty reduction by our Constitution and our policies. So it was good to hear that Deputy Leader and Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper has spoken out not only about the depth of poverty left by the Conservative Government but also the inadequacy so far of our Labour Government’s approach to it. 

She has stated:

This deep poverty is a scar on the nation made by the Conservative party, but the Labour government has so far just sat on its hands.

She highlighted the Government’s refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap as well as the winter fuel pay cut for thousands of pensioners. 

She could say much more, and hopefully will press the theme. The latest report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on poverty in Britain finds that relative child poverty rates are projected to rise this year, from 30.8% in England to 31.5%, and in Wales from 32.3% to 34.4%. Moreover, the JRF chief executive Paul Kissack was quoted in Wednesday’s Guardian as stating

 “Any credible child poverty strategy must include policies to rebuild the tattered social security system” 

Our party has recognised the need, stating on page 51 of our 2024 Manifesto  our intentions to:

  • Tackle child poverty by removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap
  • Set a target of ending deep poverty within a decade, and establish an independent commission to recommend further annual increases in Universal Credit to ensure that support covers life’s essentials, such as food and bills.
  • Support pensioners by protecting the triple lock so that pensions always rise in line with inflation, wages or 2.5% – whichever is the highest.

There is much more, some of which is set out on page 52. Such as, ‘Scrapping the bedroom tax and replacing the sanctions regime with an incentive-based scheme to help people into work.’

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 34 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

Lost in the blizzard of President Trump’s presidential decrees was the throwaway line that he plans to build an Israeli-style “iron dome” over the United States.

There are problems with such an ambition. For a start, the United States is 50 times bigger than Israel. Next problem is that Israel’s iron dome protects against drones, artillery attacks and short to intermediate-range missiles. Any American system would have to add long-range hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles to that list.

Next is the cost. Israel’s iron dome is estimated to cost $4-5 billion a year. Using the same technology, an American iron dome would cost about $120 billion. At the moment America’s entire missile defense budget is $29 billion and the total defense budget for 2025 is projected to be $852.3 billion.

The above figures are for a ground and sea-based iron dome. One of Trump’s greatest first-term boasts was the creation of the US Space Force (USSF). The force is 8,400-strong and under the command of General John Raymond. It would seem likely that Trump would want his USSF to at least contribute to the proposed iron dome.

This would involve basing satellites in space which would be armed with laser guns and kinetic missiles. There would also have to be a huge fleet of satellites based over enemy territory to spot missile launches. The advantage of a space-based system would be that the missiles could be intercepted before they reach US territory.

The disadvantages are that it would likely be construed as a breach of the 1967 UN treaty on Outer Space which prohibits the basing or use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space. There is also the problem of the price tag—an estimated $1 trillion.

But a space-based system cannot do the job alone. Some missiles will inevitably sneak past the laser guns. For protection against them there will need to be a complementary ground-based system as well.

Gaza

Trump is nothing if not stubborn. You could also say obstinate, inflexible, mulish, or, if you want to be kind, persistent.

His suggestion that the Gazan Palestinians be relocated in brand new homes somewhere in Jordan and/or Egypt is the latest manifestation of the first administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” programme which was negotiated by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Kushner’s January 2020 plan did not explicitly call for the resettlement of Palestinians. But it hinted that the US would provide financial incentives for them to move– $50 billion over ten years. But where? Kushner privately proposed Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. But before publishing those thoughts he contacted the leaders of those countries and was told: “No way!!!”

Resettlement of Palestinian refugees is not a new idea. It is, literally, as old as the founding of the modern state of Israel. David Ben-Gurion proposed it almost as soon as the Israeli flag was first raised. Others who have resurrected it periodically over the past 76 years include: John Foster Dulles, John Bolton, Ariel Sharon, Leader of Lebanon’s Phalange Party Bashir Gemayel, Menahem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu, all of Israeli’s far-right religious leaders and even an Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said.

Each time the suggestion has been raised it has been knocked down by the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. For them it has always been a non-starter

Jordan has historically been touted as the most likely home for resettled Palestinians. This is because the British Mandate included the present-day Jordan and Israel. After the 1948 war a number of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan and were granted Jordanian citizenship. Currently about 50-70 percent of Jordan’s citizens are classified as Palestinian. But problems arose in the late 1960’s when the PLO used Jordan as its main base for guerrilla attacks on Israel. The Israelis responded in kind.

The result was that in 190-71, Jordan’s King Hussein expelled the PLO in what became known as “Black September.” Palestinians are welcome in Jordan, but not those that would antagonise Israel as many who are currently in Gaza and the West Bank might do.

As for those in Gaza and the West Bank, their views were forcefully expressed, by displaced Gazan Abu Yahya Rashid. “We are the ones who decide our fate and what we want,” he said. “This land is ours and the property of our ancestors throughout history. We will not leave it accept as corpses.”

Palestinians and Gazans are holding out for the two-state solution. Once again, Trump is consistent—this time in his opposition to what every other western country supports.  The 2020 Peace to Prosperity plan proposed only a fragmented Palestinian state with limited sovereignty. The Palestinians rejected it. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s newly-appointed evangelical ambassador to Israel, has taken a step further than Kushner. “There will never,” he insisted, “be a Palestinian state.”

United States air crash

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 5 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon R
    That's a very thoughtful article that gives a good account of the problems we need to solve, thanks @William. @Steve: Two answers to your question about weal...
  • Steve Trevethan
    How can a crumbling society produce sufficient wealth to sustain itself and cope with the current financial extractions by the tax favoured wealthy? We seem ...
  • William Wallace
    Steve: We need wealthy people because, even if they don't pay a very high proportion of their income in tax, it nevertheless adds up to a very useful amount of ...
  • Nigel Jones
    Yes we need a strong narrative to justify a fairer tax system which also raises more for investment as well as public services. I suggest part of that narrativ...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Why do we need very wealthy people who value personal wealth more than loyalty to our nation?...