Author Archives: Paul Hindley

Paul Hindley

Starmer is living in a dreamworld. Britain must choose between Europe and Trump’s America

By Paul Hindley | Sun 2nd March 2025 - 12:43 pm

What a difference a day makes. On Thursday, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to Washington DC to meet with President Donald Trump. There, in the White House, Starmer had a jovial and good-spirited meeting and press conference with the new US President. The press hailed the Prime Minister’s visit as a triumph referring to it as a “love-in” and a “bromance”. It appeared to vindicate Starmer’s strategy of walking a delicate diplomatic tightrope between Europe and the new American administration.

But then came Friday. President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s wartime leader, who is viewed by many to be a modern Churchill, sat in the same seat in the Oval Office as Starmer had done. However, Zelensky’s meeting with Trump could not have represented a greater contrast to that of Starmer’s a day earlier. There, Zelensky was subjected to berating and bullying from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Trump and Vance brought absolute shame on to the Office of the Presidency by goading and bullying Zelensky. All of which played into the hands of Vladimir Putin and his fascist attempt to conquer Ukraine.

Starmer’s dream day in the Oval Office has quickly turned into a living nightmare. Trump’s treatment of Zelensky reveals an uncomfortable truth. That in this increasingly divided and polarised world, Britain cannot continue to walk a diplomatic tightrope between Europe and Trump’s America. Britain will have to decide who it stands with. Do we stand with most other European democracies in defending what remains of the liberal rules-based order, or do we stand with Trump in forging a harsh world of realism, authoritarianism and post-truth politics?

In the EU, the likely next German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for greater European independence from America. There are even serious considerations about the creation of a common European army, especially as Trump’s America is no longer seen as a reliable NATO partner. Britain, along with the rest of Europe, must free itself from its dependency on America, especially on matters of defence. We Europeans must stand on our own two feet. We must embrace being the leaders of the free world, a position that Trump vacated on Friday when he sided with Putin against Zelensky. 

There are significant risks for Britain in choosing to side with Trump over Europe. A cutthroat trade deal with Trump’s America that forced us to reduce our trading standards and economic regulations would be bad for our economy. It would also kill any hopes of getting a stronger trading relationship with the EU. Britain should not allow Trump to bully us into accepting an unfavourable trade deal through the threat of increased tariffs. The Trump Administration has also taken aim at Britain’s attempts to combat hate speech and discrimination. To reduce such protections would only embolden the far-right even further. In short, if we side with Trump, then Britain risks being reduced to a vassal state of Trump’s America.

However, it is far from certain that Starmer will take Britain closer to Europe. Take for example, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, rebutting the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Ed Davey has rightly called for Britain to join a customs union with the EU. Yet, even this proposal, one that would bring clear economic benefits, has not been supported by Labour. The fact that Labour cannot support even the most reasonable and modest proposals for strengthening our relationship with Europe is a cause for concern.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 18 Comments
Paul Hindley

In the shadow of Trump, Britain requires a seismic shift in tax and spend

By Paul Hindley | Wed 19th February 2025 - 10:55 am

Harold Wilson once famously said that “a week is a long time in politics”. Well, the last week feels like an eternity in international politics. Last week, NATO member states received a scolding from the new US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who warned them not to treat Uncle Sam like “Uncle Sucker” on defence spending. While at the weekend’s Munich Security Conference, US Vice President, JD Vance spouted the ridiculous claim that immigration and tackling hate speech, such as through having safe zones around abortion clinics, were a bigger threat to European democracies than Russia or China.

The wavering of Trump’s America on its security commitments to Europe poses immense questions for Britain. Keir Starmer was right to commit British peacekeepers to Ukraine as part of an international mission. While Ed Davey was right to call for Labour to reverse the Conservatives’ 10,000 troop cutback to the British Army. It is clear that defence spending will have to increase considerably beyond NATO’s 2% of GDP requirement, even beyond the new government target of 2.5%.

But defence is not the only area that requires a considerable increase in public spending. Britain needs new and improved hospitals; the social care crisis needs to be addressed; several local councils are facing bankruptcy; welfare cuts, such as the two-child benefit cap, need to be reversed; and climate change needs to be tackled. All of this heralds a seismic shift in how we as a country facilitate tax and spend policies. In a nutshell, public spending in Britain will need to increase across the board.

One option to increase state spending is by making cutbacks elsewhere. However, after years of austerity, this is unwise. But what could we cut anyway? We cannot cut NHS spending or defence spending. Some schools and prisons are already crumbling, so education and justice are off the table. The welfare, local government and international aid budgets have already experienced deep cutbacks. Finally, we cannot cut back on green policies when we are facing a climate crisis.

What about funding the additional spending through borrowing? Borrowing can offer part of the answer. We should be borrowing to invest in the construction of vital infrastructure projects. Borrowing should also be used in the short term to immediately address the NHS crisis. While some EU nations, such as Spain, are calling for EU-wide borrowing to fund Europe’s necessary defence spending increases. However, we should be cautious. Borrowing is not a silver bullet. We have to be aware of the economic risks of relying too much on borrowing and the potential for a future debt crisis.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 30 Comments
Paul Hindley

Liberals Must Rediscover Working Class Politics

By Paul Hindley | Sun 10th November 2024 - 11:55 am

The world changed in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Like all Liberal Democrats, I was extremely hopeful the Kamala Harris would be elected as America’s next President. That did not happen. Donald Trump triumphed. Authoritarian nationalism triumphed. The far-right triumphed.

Central to Harris’ defeat was the loss of Latino and even white women voters. But most crucially, it was the loss of working class voters, especially in those vital “rust belt” swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden carried these states in 2020 and Obama carried them easily in 2008 and 2012. But the Harris campaign made a fatal error, they failed to realise that it was a cost of living election, they failed to realise the impact of inflation and they failed to realise the disconnect between the Democrats and their traditional working class base.

In 2020, Biden made a virtue out of being “Scranton Joe”. He worked tirelessly to connect with the traditional working class voters in the industrial swing states. And Biden never shied away from championing his support for trade unions. For all the strengths of the Harris campaign, they lost sight of an important political fact. It’s the economy that is always the defining issue of elections and it’s living standards that matter most.

What does all this mean for Liberal Democrats here in the UK? Firstly, we will have to contend with a destructive protectionist and fascistic US President. Secondly, we will need to be on our guard for Trump apologists in our own country that may seek to take Britain down a similar destructive far-right path. But most importantly of all, we need to understand that if progressive liberalism cannot offer an alternative to the injustices faced by working class people, then far-right nationalism will. This is regardless of the consequences that such nationalism poses to liberal democracy. Liberals in Britain and around the world need to reconnect with working class voters.

If liberalism is not strong at ending the injustices that fuel fascism, then fascism will be strong at ending liberalism. Recall the words of the great liberal US President Franklin D Roosevelt, speaking in 1944:

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

Liberals need to be strong about confronting social hardships. We need to show working class voters and those people left behind by the economy of recent decades, that we are capable of improving their lives, and that we seek to build a democracy that represents them and works for them. We must offer a progressive anti-elitist politics, which is rooted in the liberal tradition, and that will work to offer an effective alternative to both far-right nationalism and far-left authoritarianism.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 35 Comments
Paul Hindley

The Liberal Democrats are now Britain’s progressive opposition

By Paul Hindley | Tue 9th July 2024 - 10:37 am

Seventy-two seats! Seventy-two! I doubt even in Ed Davey’s wildest dreams, he envisioned us winning so many seats. The “Blue Wall” lies in rubble. The Liberal Democrats now have more seats than at any time in over a century. Not since 1923, when Herbert Asquith was the party leader, have Liberals held so many seats in the House of Commons. We now represent dozens of seats across the South of England. But that’s not all, we also made gains in the North of England, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales. There is something poetic about our 72nd seat (and the final seat to be declared in this election) being that of our late great former leader Charles Kennedy.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 10 Comments
Paul Hindley

In this General Election, we must offer Britain hope for a real progressive future!

By Paul Hindley | Fri 24th May 2024 - 7:21 pm

If on Monday you had told most people, MPs and political pundits that a general election would be called before the end of the week, very few would have believed you. Yet here we are. At long last, tens of millions of voters across the country have the opportunity to throw our disgraceful Conservative government out of office. Expect the next six weeks to be dominated by a bitterly fought campaign by all the major parties.

But as we go to the country, what should the Liberal Democrats offer to an electorate that is still struggling with the NHS crisis, the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis (to name just three)? In a word, hope! Real hope! Not half-hearted soundbites, but true meaningful hope. Hope that is accompanied by real policy substance and political commitments. Hope that there is an end in sight to the many crises that bedevil modern Britain. Hope that a real progressive future is possible.

One of the biggest crises we face is the diabolical state that our National Health Service finds itself in. The NHS is dangerously underfunded and understaffed. Swathes of the country have become dental deserts as patients struggle to find NHS dentists. Most parties still struggle to grasp the nettle of guaranteeing decent social care for the elderly.

We have a very ambitious and progressive platform on health and social care. Our current health policies include: a GP Guarantee; a dental action plan to solve the dental crisis; a two-month cancer treatment guarantee; giving mental health support parity with physical health support; and introducing free personal care for the elderly. Added to this, we have just announced plans to recruit an extra 8,000 GPs. We have the bold policies needed to save the NHS. I strongly believe that the Liberal Democrats ought to proudly become the Party of the NHS.

Another major crisis is the continuing cost of living crisis, as millions languish in poverty. Both food poverty and child poverty are increasing. The Trussell Trust charity that runs many food banks has reported that it handed out a record 3.1 million emergency food parcels in the year up to March 2024. While a third of the food parcels went to children. To put it bluntly, it is a moral stain on the conscience of our nation that food poverty and child poverty still exist in one of the richest countries on Earth.

However, we Liberal Democrats have the radical policies needed to address entrenched poverty. We are committed to transforming Universal Credit into a Guaranteed Basic Income, so that we can lift up the poorest people in our country and abolish deep poverty within a decade. Added to this, we are committed to scrapping the two-child benefit cap and to introducing free school meals for all of the poorest children. These policies will drastically combat poverty across our country. We as a party have long been committed to building a progressive liberal society whereby “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty”.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 44 Comments
Paul Hindley

Let’s embrace being the party of the NHS

By Paul Hindley | Fri 29th September 2023 - 12:16 pm

Following another year’s Federal Autumn Conference, it is important to reflect on the position of the party. This is especially the case given that we may be only 12 months away from a general election campaign. We may finally have an opportunity to help to get rid of this dreadful Conservative government, and in the process, get many new Liberal Democrat MPs elected.

Britain cannot withstand five more years of the Conservatives. Nowhere is this clearer than with our National Health Service. The NHS is in turmoil. Years of Tory mismanagement and underfunding have led to our precious NHS struggling to cope. The morale of doctors, nurses and other NHS staff is at a severe low. While the number of vacancies in the NHS is at a “staggering” high. This is a time when the NHS funding gap continues to be wide and NHS dentistry has become dysfunctional, with people having to pull out their own teeth.

The NHS is of immense importance to us Liberal Democrats, not just because it is a vital public service in helping to advance individual freedom and social justice, but because we had a hand in its creation. The great Liberal social reformer, William Beveridge invented the idea of the NHS in his report into social services in 1942. The Beveridge Report became the blueprint for the post-war welfare state. A blueprint that was largely enacted by the post-war Labour government of Clement Attlee. While it was a socialist, Labour’s radical Health Secretary Aneurin Bevan who introduced an established the NHS in 1948, the original idea was that of a Liberal.

The NHS, health and social care have become of central importance for Liberal Democrats once again. It was incredibly moving to listen to Ed Davey, during his leader’s speech on Tuesday, talk about how he had to care for his mother while she was dying of cancer. Health and social care have become a hallmark of Ed Davey’s leadership, inspired by his personal experience of being a carer himself. Earlier in the Conference, our Deputy Leader and Health and Social Care Spokesperson, Daisy Cooper spoke passionately about the need to address the crisis in mental health provision.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 5 Comments
Paul Hindley

The feeling’s mutual

By Paul Hindley | Wed 24th May 2023 - 11:55 am

At the weekend, The Observer reported that the privatised water companies in England are expected to pay out £14.7 billion worth of dividends to shareholders by 2030. This comes only days after water executives promised to invest an extra £10 billion in upgrading the water system and expected customers to pay for it through higher water bills. This is a national scandal quite frankly. It is yet another demonstration of how a privatised natural monopoly operates. The profits are passed on to wealthy senior shareholders, while the risks and costs are passed on to customers. Things cannot go on like this.

So, where do Liberal Democrats stand on the age old divide between socialist statist nationalisations and Thatcherite privatisations? Firstly, a degree of pragmatism is required. Liberals should never be ideologically wedded to either nationalisation or privatisation. Some things are better off being run by the state (such as, the NHS and the education system), while other things are better off being in the private sector (for example, telecommunications and aviation). Secondly, it is important that liberals advocate for a third option, that being mutualisation.

Mutualisation is where a business, industry or organisation is transferred into mutual ownership. This can take several forms. It could take the form of a not-for-profit business model whereby a company’s profits are reinvested for the benefit of its customers. It may also take the form of customers receiving a share of the company’s profits themselves in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, it could take the form of a traditional co-operative that is owned by its customers and/or its workers. The important thing is that mutualisation would lead to a company treating all of its customers as stakeholders; therefore, it would have a social and economic responsibility to each of its customers. Mutualisation offers a distinctive alternative for Liberal Democrats, one that is more decentralised than nationalisation and more socially just than privatisation, while potentially being more democratic and accountable than either.

So how might this work in practice? England’s water industry is the only one in the UK that is still privatised. Scotland’s and Northern Ireland’s are already nationalised. However, it is to Wales that Liberal Democrat should turn to. In Wales, Welsh Water is mutualised and its profits are reinvested into the maintenance of the Welsh water system and into lowering bills for customers. Liberal Democrats in England should call for the mutualisation of the English water companies along similar lines to Welsh Water. We should learn from the example of Welsh Water, however even mutuals (or nationalised industries for that matter) require stricter legally binding environmental regulations and should not be treated as a panacea in and of themselves. We should also explore the possibility of making water mutualisation in England even more democratically accountable to customers than Welsh Water.

Where else could Liberal Democrats advocate for increased mutualisation? One option is in relation to the banking and finance sector. The Great British building society used to offer customers an alternative to traditional banks. From the 1980s onwards, the number of building societies declined rapidly as they were demutualised (and thus privatised) under Thatcherism. Liberal Democrats should promote and encourage the establishment of new building societies to give customers and businesses greater choice. We should also promote credit unions, which also represent a mutual alternative to traditional lending.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | 28 Comments
Paul Hindley

Let’s make deep poverty history with a Guaranteed Basic Income

By Paul Hindley | Fri 24th March 2023 - 12:39 pm

Britain is one of the richest countries on Earth. And yet, millions of people live in food and fuel poverty. For the poorest families in our country, the cost of living crisis is nothing new. It has been a consistent reality for decades as they have struggled to afford the basic essentials in life.

In recent years, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society have been impacted by crisis after crisis. From the financial crisis of 2008, to the years of austerity, to the current cost of living crisis, not to mention the consequences of Brexit, the poorest and most vulnerable continue to suffer. Poverty deprives the individual of dignity, autonomy and personhood. It prevents them from developing as an individual and severely limits their life outcomes. There could be nothing more liberal than ensuring that “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty”.

Last weekend, I found myself in the unusual position of being undecided on a conference vote as the party debated its Towards A Fairer Society motion in York. The debate centred around a choice between Universal Basic Income (UBI) and what the party called a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI). Having previously written for Lib Dem Voice on the merits of a Universal Basic Income, it may come as a surprise that I was not sure which policy option to support.

For me, the choice between UBI and GBI was a battle between heart and head. UBI on the face of it is the ideal policy, it is radical and egalitarian and is based upon the notion of universal shared citizenship. Everyone would be in receipt of it, regardless of background or wealth. The universality of the policy is essential for reducing the social stigma towards the poorest who would need it most. However, fellow UBI supporters need to better respond to the criticism of why the richest should also receive it (even though their UBI would probably be entirely taxed back by the state).

Universal Basic Income is a massive policy, not just in terms of public expenditure, but in terms of its potential to transform society and the economy. In order to do UBI justice, a complex and sophisticated political argument is required. One that would require us to re-examine the nature of work, citizenship, universality, the tax system and the welfare state.

It was clear that the party would currently struggle to advance such a complicated political argument. If party activists cannot easily explain a policy in a Focus leaflet or on the doorstep, it is doomed to fail. Since the party first supported UBI in autumn 2020, the party leadership has been reluctant to advocate for it. This factor was further underlined during the debate when several MPs stood up to argue in favour of GBI and against UBI.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 42 Comments
Paul Hindley

Let’s become the Party of the Universal Basic Income

By Paul Hindley | Sat 8th August 2020 - 9:04 am

September will mark 10 years since I attended my first Liberal Democrat Conference, albeit this year’s Conference being entirely online. Having attended most Federal Conferences over that period I have witnessed numerous debates on topics ranging from public services to constitutional reform and from scrapping Trident to building more houses. 

Lately, several of the motions that have come to be debated at Conference have been very uninspiring; all motherhood and apple pie, while not wanting to scare the political horses too much. Can we truly call something a debate if 99% of conference goers are already in favour of it? When we look back at the party’s history, we see moments of great policy radicalism and an unflinching willingness to be the shapers of the big ideas of tomorrow. A liberal party, especially a liberal party with only 11 MPs and currently on single digits in the polls, needs to be bold, radical and imaginative in its policy development.

I was therefore delighted to see that a motion on the Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been chosen to be debated on the evening of Friday 25 September. The Universal Basic Income is the idea that all citizens should have an unconditional guaranteed minimum income. It would enshrine the principle that everyone has the right to own some capital. A UBI would guarantee a social minimum for the poorest members of society and would be the jewel in the crown of the party’s commitment to social justice. I welcome the motion’s commitment to guaranteeing continued additional income support mechanisms for people in receipt of housing and disability support payments. I also welcome a UBI being rolled out on the basis of the best available international evidence.

A Universal Basic Income would deliver essential social protection for those who fall outside traditional realms of employment, such as carers, students, parents with child caring responsibilities, as well as continuing to deliver welfare support for the elderly, the unemployed and people with disabilities. It would also help to raise the income of low-paid workers and those in precarious employment situations. It would help to remedy the injustices faced by the so-called ‘WASPI women’ who have lost out financially as a result of changes to the pension system. Finally, it would give additional financial support for those wanting to pursue a new vocation (such as becoming a musician) or to set up a new business, where there may be a significant period of time before a secure income can be received.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 45 Comments
Paul Hindley

Let’s embrace our distinctive and radical form of progressive politics

By Paul Hindley | Thu 2nd July 2020 - 1:38 pm

Embed from Getty Images

The Liberal Democrat leadership election is seeing healthy debates between activists and supporters about the future direction of the party. There appears to be an emerging consensus from both Layla Moran and Ed Davey that the party needs to recommit itself to a clear centre-left identity. We Liberal Democrats are the inheritors of two great progressive traditions, liberalism and social democracy.

Our party has one of the oldest political traditions of any party anywhere in the world. It can be traced back to the Parliamentarians and the Whigs of the 17th century. In the 19th century, our radical liberalism ended slavery and advanced primary school education. Whilst our social liberalism in the 20th century led us to lay the foundations of the welfare state and to support the sharing of power and profits between bosses and workers within the workplace.

The origins of social democracy in Britain are to be found with the Fabian writers of the 1880s. In the 20th century, the work of the leading Labour social democrat Anthony Crosland inspired many social democrats in the party from Roy Jenkins to Vince Cable. When the SDP was founded, it liberated social democracy from the divisive class politics of the hard left of the Labour Party.

Progressive politics in our party is a unique radical blend of liberalism and social democracy. Amongst the greatest achievements of our progressive tradition were abolishing slavery, extending the right to vote, establishing workers’ rights, creating the welfare state, legalising abortion and introducing same-sex marriage.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 9 Comments
Paul Hindley

Revoking Article 50 alone isn’t enough

By Paul Hindley | Fri 20th September 2019 - 12:30 pm

With the prospect of a general election on the horizon, we have just finished another successful Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference in Bournemouth. Jo Swinson delivered a stirring first leader’s speech and Conference backed several new policy motions, most notably the party’s new policy on Brexit. A future Liberal Democrat Majority Government would revoke Article 50 and instantly stop Brexit.

British politics now has a party that is prepared to do its utmost to put an end to Brexit, either by getting a democratic mandate to revoke Article 50 or failing that, by securing a People’s Vote with the option to Remain in the EU. Brexit has developed into the biggest peacetime political and constitutional crisis arguably since the 17th century. It is shaking British politics to its very foundations with our constitutional settlement being tested like never before.

It is not just enough to stop Brexit by revoking Article 50, we also need to heal our broken democracy. At the time of writing this, the case against the prorogation of Parliament is playing out at the Supreme Court. The Executive branch has been made to answer a case presented to the Judiciary in regard to its actions towards the Legislature. There is conflict between the three branches of government.

Britain unlike many countries does not have a single written (or codified) constitution with clearly defined checks and balances. In the absence of this, Boris Johnson’s government is able to railroad Parliament by utilising the ancient powers of the royal prerogative to enact a five-week long prorogation. The potential for an extremely authoritarian government being able to take power is very real under the current British constitutional settlement; a fact which is underlined by the majoritarian nature of the first past the post voting system.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 39 Comments
Paul Hindley

Remembering Peterloo and the struggle for liberal democracy

By Paul Hindley | Fri 16th August 2019 - 11:55 am

Liberalism has a long and complex history. Sometimes that history has been bloody. This weekend there is a range of events happening in Manchester to mark the 200 year anniversary of one such episode in liberal history, the Peterloo massacre. This was when a large gathering of tens of thousands of people calling for political reform in St Peter’s Field in Manchester on 16th August 1819 was forcibly charged by soldiers on horseback. This resulted in 18 people being killed and hundreds being injured. The name of the massacre aimed to mock the British victory at Waterloo that had happened four years earlier.

Peterloo is an important reminder that we cannot take liberalism and democracy for granted. Our modern political rights and freedoms had to be fought for and even at times face authorities prepared to use lethal force in order to suppress democratic sentiments. 200 years on, liberal democracy is still a luxury that many countries and parts of the world do not have. From China to Syria, from Russia to Zimbabwe and from Saudi Arabia to North Korea, activists the world over are to this day struggling, fighting and even dying for the political rights and freedoms that we have in Britain in 2019.

Peterloo is important for liberals, but it is also important to socialists and progressives of all kinds. We liberals must be unafraid to defend our history. We must not abandon radical moments of British liberal history to socialists and extreme leftists. The political philosophy of the radical liberal thinker, Thomas Paine, helped to inspire the protesters at Peterloo. Peterloo was about liberty, freedom from oppression and people’s political rights. In short, it was about political reform. All of these things form the core tenets of liberalism. 

In 1819, only 2% of the population could vote (mostly the landed gentry) and working people in cities like Manchester lived in industrial levels of poverty and squalor. Both of these issues would be remedied by Liberals over the century that followed. The Great Reform Act of the Whig Prime Minister, Earl Grey in 1832 swept away the Tory rotten boroughs. William Gladstone gave the vote to millions of agricultural workers in 1885 and under the government of David Lloyd George in 1918, universal male suffrage was achieved, as well as the first voting rights for women. In regard to the industrial poverty, Liberals helped to abolish the dreaded protectionist Corn Laws, advanced the rights of workers (including legalising trade unions and legitimising collective bargaining) and created the welfare state.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 19 Comments
Paul Hindley

We Lib Dems need to oppose austerity

By Paul Hindley | Fri 26th July 2019 - 11:55 am

The Liberal Democrats are the party of David Lloyd George, John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge. We are the party that laid the foundations of the welfare state and pioneered support for Keynesian economics, which strived to create an economy of public investment in infrastructure, growth and full employment. Our party’s history is one which is staunchly against ‘slash and burn’ austerity.

Of course, during the Coalition Government, the party’s leadership supported the austerity programme of David Cameron and George Osborne. This continues to be used against us by supporters of other progressive parties, not least Labour, despite the fact that Labour also supported austerity. I hope no-one joined the Liberal Democrats to introduce the ‘bedroom tax’, support the benefits cap, cut legal aid, cut housing benefit to young people, introduce assessments for disability benefits or to support benefit sanctions. It is not a nice thought, but whether you think Coalition austerity was right or not, it has ruined people’s lives and led to thousands of preventable deaths.

Coalition austerity was not compatible with the liberalism of Lloyd George, Keynes or Beveridge and many Lib Dems opposed austerity during the Coalition Government. Since the Coalition, the party has clearly begun to move away from austerity. This began in 2015, when the Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservatives’ Welfare Bill, while Labour abstained. In the general election of 2017, our party was committed to reversing more welfare cuts than even Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. 

At our Autumn Conference last year, the ‘Demand Better’ policy motion committed the party to ‘a better society, in which everyone is supported in times of need, with an end to austerity’. Those three words, ‘end to austerity’, are absolutely essential if we are to win over more Remain voters, most of which vote for progressive parties. They are as important as the other two words for which our party is known for, ‘Stop Brexit’. Indeed, austerity has helped to fuel the rise of Brexit populism and therefore if we want to stop Brexit, we must end austerity.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 38 Comments
Paul Hindley

Universal Inheritance: A Big Radical Liberal Idea

By Paul Hindley | Sun 30th September 2018 - 8:56 am

Now more than ever the Liberal Democrats need new imaginative radical policies. Big idea politics is back with a vengeance as both Labour and the Conservatives indulge in increasingly extreme visions for the country.

If we as a party are to successfully challenge both Labour’s socialism and Tory Brexit nationalism, then we need to engage in the ‘battle of ideas’ and develop our own clear alternative. Liberalism has a long radical heritage stretching back more than three centuries. Throughout the history of liberal political thought, liberals have consistently championed ways of spreading power, wealth, opportunity and ownership to individuals.

In the 20th century, Liberals campaigned under the slogan of ‘Ownership for All’. This was a radical social liberal vision of a more egalitarian capitalist society; where citizens would have the right to own capital and have democracy in their workplaces. This led to the Liberal Party supporting worker cooperatives, profit-sharing and corporate power-sharing models between bosses and workers. The Oxford University academic, Stuart White, refers to this tradition as alternative liberalism.

One central aspect of the radical liberal ownership agenda is the establishment of a citizens’ wealth fund (also called a sovereign wealth fund). This is a publicly-owned fund made up of national wealth, taxed wealth and national investments in shares, land and natural assets. Such funds work successfully from Norway to Alaska. Vince Cable and Liberal Democrat party members gave their overwhelming backing to a citizens’ wealth fund at this year’s party conference in Brighton. 

But how should the wealth amassed in a citizens’ wealth fund best be used? One answer is to deliver a universal inheritance as outlined in a recent report for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Universal inheritance is the idea of having a one-off universal capital grant paid to citizens when they turn 25 years of age. The IPPR envisions that a citizens’ wealth fund could eventually pay out a universal inheritance of £10,000 to every 25-year-old. The basic rationale for the policy is that asset-poor young people should share in the nation’s wealth at the start of their adult lives, when many are starting their careers.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 25 Comments
Paul Hindley

A 21st-Century Liberal Approach to Education

By Paul Hindley | Thu 10th May 2018 - 2:39 pm

Education has always been of special importance for liberals and Liberal Democrats throughout the ages. It has been one of the best vehicles for enabling individuals to obtain their full potential, develop their talents and make the most of the opportunities that they are presented with. It is with this in mind that Helen Flynn and John Howson’s chapter is so warmly received in the latest publication from the Social Liberal Forum, ‘Four Go In Search of Big Ideas’.

Flynn and Howson rightly place great emphasis on the need to improve early years education. They call for a highly funded early years sector that is equipped with the staff necessary to develop the learning of schoolchildren and identify any potential barriers that they may face in future learning. These teachers would need to be well educated and properly trained. The authors identify that educational inequalities emerge even before children start their formal education at the age of five. The socio-economic inequalities faced by children from the poorest backgrounds need to be tackled with extra funding from the very beginning.

Flynn and Howson propose a professional College of Teaching that would be a watchdog for professional standards in education in a similar way that the British Medical Association is in regard to the NHS. This is very much needed if the public is to continue to have faith in the professionalism and high standards of the UK’s education sector. In a similar vein, Flynn and Howson also suggest having Chief Education Officer in government who would help to guarantee best practice and develop evidence-based policy.

Continue reading »
Posted in Books and Op-eds | Tagged | 10 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon Pike
    I would be grateful if a Party spokesperson could respond to this post with a description of how they propose to define "loud". The most common measurement of a...
  • Simon R
    @Steve - still trying to blame neoliberalism for everything? ;-) No, the decline of our defence forces wasn't because of neo- or any other form of liberalism. I...
  • expats
    Perhaps Donald Trump (and Mike Peters) should read Kipling's 'Dane-geld'... And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again,...
  • expats
    @RMC 27th Apr '25 - 1:49pm... I, too, find passengers with feet on seats and the eating of smelly takeaways, then leaving the litter, on public transport irr...
  • David Murray
    POTUS Pilate wants to 'wash his hands' with the negotiations if Zelensky does not agree to hand over part of Ukraine to Putin, with a transactional deal for Tru...