Author Archives: James Hill

James Hill

The Lib Dems should be bolder. Here’s how….

By James Hill | Tue 20th October 2026 - 12:00 pm

It is no secret that the party is narrowly focused on retaining the 72 seats we won at the last general election and expanding further into triple digits. Local election results in those constituencies are a sign that it seems to be working. Recently, the Guardian published a sensible editorial pointing out that it is imperative for the Lib Dems to achieve this goal to keep an unholy Tory-Reform alliance at bay in the next general election. Furthermore, it will maximise our influence over a Labour minority in a potential hung parliament. So yes, in our FPTP system, and facing the dire threat of Reform and Reform-lite, this ruthless commitment to target seats is the correct one.

However, pursuit of this goal has led to an overabundance of caution that is diluting the party’s messaging and enabling us to fade further away from the national conversation. We seem to have leapt at the opportunity to snatch Kier Starmer’s fabled Ming Vase and have been hobbling around with it for the past two years – afraid of saying anything too bold, too radical or too liberal. This matters because if we are ever to make progress across the whole country, we need to be present in the national political agenda to give our local activists something to build off. If we don’t establish the party’s identity now, a potential coalition may simply reduce us to the yellow branch of the Labour party and could prove existential in the event we do get PR elections. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, if we don’t actively go out and preach the liberal solutions to our country’s problems, we actively concede the intellectual ground to our conservative opponents.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 23 Comments
James Hill

Burnham is right to reform the triple lock; the Lib Dems should support it

By James Hill | Fri 2nd October 2026 - 11:45 am

In his conference speech this week, Andy Burnham made a brave political decision to reform the triple lock on the state pension.  The reformed triple lock will increase the state pension by either inflation or 2.5% every year. If there is sustained growth in average wages over several years – enough to outpace the inflation and 2.5% locks – then the pension will rise to match that wage growth.

This ensures that every year the state pension will be protected, or increase, in real terms, and it retains its value relative to wages. This is a sensible reform; similar proposals have been put forward by the resolution foundation, and our own peer Tim Leunig, and there is widespread agreement from economists that the unreformed triple lock is financially unsustainable. Under the current triple lock, the state pension can grow faster than both wages and inflation, due to a ratcheting effect where correlated higher inflation and larger wage increases lag each other and lead to compounded state pension increases. And remember, every time the state pension bill increases, this money must come be found from increased taxes, spending cuts or (currently dismal) growth. The triple lock reform removes this ratchet by tracking average wage growth over many years, instead of an annual wage growth lock, saving an estimated £15 billion/year by 2039/40 (though this is hard to predict). This is a large sum of money in the medium and long term and will significantly ease the huge spending pressure the country is facing.

So it was disappointing to see an immediate condemnation of this policy from the party leadership – seemingly without considering the details or merits of what has been proposed. They seem to have jumped into opposition because of a (misguided) belief that the most politically popular option is to oppose any change to the triple lock, now and forever more. The polling around this announcement shows how wrong this assessment is (Lib Dem voters are the most supportive of the reform)!

Our deputy leader Daisy did an interview with Sky News setting out the party’s 3 main problems with the plan, 24 hours after the PM’s speech:

1) The reform doesn’t raise any money in the short term for urgent social care needs

2) It seems like cross party talks have been torpedoed

3) Triple lock “hasn’t done its job yet” in tackling pensioner poverty

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 8 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Mick Taylor
    Far too many people are being taken in by claims of high taxation. When I started work in the late 60s the basic rate of income tax was 33% and the top rate (s...
  • Jana
    @Tim Roger’s “ The gas will not stay in the ground because Norway will take their share and then ours” Excellent point. I haven’t read that argument...
  • Jana
    “ First, we need to be clear about the difference between constitutional democracy – or liberal democracy – and popular democracy” I don’t agree th...
  • theakes
    Judging from yesterdays results, 3 Conservative gains, it now seems pretty clear that they are back. Surely we have to adopt a different approach. There is a vo...
  • expats
    Lord William Wallace...........At the end of the Cold War American liberals thought that democracy had triumphed, and that authoritarian states would move towar...