Author Archives: Jack Meredith

In April of this year, I wrote an op-ed responding to Chris Whiting on the need for liberals and socialists to work together.

At the time, I opposed this idea, citing the ideological differences between socialists and liberals, and how we should reject cooperation.

In the following months, I’ve come to realise that I was wrong. In today’s political climate, cooperation is essential to combating extremism. The likes of Farage and Badenoch thrive on division among progressives, and my opposition to working with socialists only feeds into their desires.

I’ve also gone on a political journey, similar to Chris. The crossover between ideas such as ethical socialism, social democracy, social liberalism and centrism is strong, and cannot be denied. All ideas share the belief in promoting social justice, equality, liberty, and strengthening the democratic rights of citizens.

Much like many in our party, I support a mixed economy, strong ties to the EU, and federalism, and believe that the state has a responsibility to do more to help those who struggle to make ends meet, while also knowing when to step in and when to let people live their lives, free from government interference. I support freedom of enterprise and believe that no large national economy can thrive without big business playing a role. I support individual liberties and the right to express oneself, with the knowledge that it does not mean freedom from consequence.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has been campaigning for the renationalisation of Britain’s railways, citing how different services are owned or part-owned by the Dutch, German, Italian and Hong Kong governments and asking why the British government doesn’t own these. It concludes with the TUC calling for the British government to renationalise the railway services.

I take umbrage with the language used by the TUC. Framing this as “foreigners shouldn’t own our stuff” plays into the hands of nationalists, giving power to those who want to cut Britain off from the world and transform us into a regressive hellhole. With historical evidence showing us that fascists are all too happy to court working people and drive a wedge between “us and them”, weaponising these arguments opens for xenophobia and indifference to become more significant than they already are among the trade union movement.

There is no opposition from me to nationalisation, of course, provided the argument for it is sound and no alternatives pose greater returns for the British people. Social democratic scholar and former Labour MP Tony Crosland wrote in his book “The Future Of Socialism” of the left’s deifying of nationalisation. He argued how regulation might be the superior alternative, as the privately-owned organisation always has to work to prove itself to maintain the contract, while the state-owned organisation has more room for becoming apathetic regarding the quality of service as it has no competitors.

However, the organisations running our railways aren’t technically private; they’re state-owned organisations that foreign governments own. But this is the crucial point: they operate in the UK. We can regulate and hold them to a high standard. And if they can’t meet these standards, then we consider nationalisation. The case must be evidence-based and common sense rather than “we don’t want foreigners taking our industries”.

My point is all well and good, but if you have a corrupt government, then it doesn’t matter what the ownership model of the railways is; the service will never be as good as it can be.

But that isn’t the case for Britain, right?

Oh, bugger.

Trans rights are human rights, trans men are men, trans women are women and nothing will ever change this.

It is becoming clear, however, that a minority of our citizens and even representatives in our parliament, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists – or “TERFs” – do not feel the same way, choosing to see trans people as threats, and choose to attack and undermine them simply for existing, which I cannot help but regard as foolish and wrong. Trans women are women and trans men are men; how can they be threats when all they’re doing is living their lives, no different from you and me?

TERFs refuse to acknowledge that trans people are who they say they are, and in doing so undermine the feminist movement – the cause they claim to defend – but in reality are adding to the oppression and discrimination faced under the patriarchy. It is a reminder of how far we’ve strayed from the “civilised society” – tolerance, openness, inclusivity, the strengthening of individual rights and the abolishment of illiberal laws that prohibit people from living their lives to the fullest extent – the idea that liberal icon Roy Jenkins championed as Home Secretary under then-Labour Party leader Harold Wilson. If it weren’t for him, Britain would not have decriminalised homosexuality, removed theatre censorship, legalised abortions, banned racial discrimination in work, to name but a few of Jenkins’ accomplishments.

But more importantly than what he achieved, is the ideology he brought to the role of Home Secretary: social libertarianism. While many will read that, and think of the likes of Friedrich Hayek, free markets were not the aim of Jenkins’ reforms. But instead, so long as a person brings no harm to themselves or others and follows the rule of law, then who are we to say their identity is invalid? TERFs disagree with this sentiment, actively limiting women’s rights and supporting the strengthening of the patriarchy through harsher policing and state intervention in the lives of individuals.