Category Archives: Op-eds

Rees-Mogg, Grenfell and Catholic social teaching

The Brexit of the Johnsons and Rees-Moggs of this world will free Britain from “the manacles” of the EU. This will enable Brexit to be used to slash and burn all those pesky regulations designed to protect workers’ rights. Johnson has now left them to be discussed in the non-binding political declaration, no longer preserved by the legally binding withdrawal agreement. Rees-Mogg concurs. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg is visible as a devout Catholic, sometimes ostentatiously so. But the social teaching of his church is set squarely against this Brexit vision, since it is often regulations inspired in part by Catholic social teaching that constitute those “manacles” of the EU. 

Modern Catholic Social Teaching evolved as a Christian response to industrial poverty in the late nineteenth century. Its principles chime impeccably with liberalism. Workers have the right to solidarity with each other (collective bargaining, trade unions), whilst private property is to be respected and entrepreneurship encouraged because it creates wealth. A collaboration between capital and labour that is fair and comprehensive is essential. The State also needs to be involved. As Pope St. John Paul II put it in Centesimus Annus in 1991: “the marketplace needs to be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.” 

He also taught that the State, “has…the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children. It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of .”    

Tagged , and | 14 Comments

Jeremy Corbyn embraces his inner Brexiteer

Jeremy Corbyn suggests today that we could leave the EU without damaging  our economy and public services. He’ll tell an audience in Essex, according to the Independent:

Mr Corbyn will say: “If you want to leave the EU without trashing our economy or selling out our NHS you’ll be able to vote for it.

He’ll outline a Labour policy that involves negotiating a new deal and then the Government will decide after that whether it will back the deal in a referendum or vote for Remain.

Kier Starmer sounded very uncomfortable as he explained all this on the Today programme this morning. When asked if Corbyn was a leaver or a remainer, he sounded very hesitant as he told us that Jeremy said he voted remain last time.

Starmer has spent the last couple of years being undermined by his party’s leader at every turn.

It’s significant that Corbyn is talking up Brexit the day after Nigel Farage said that his Brexit Party  was going explicitly after Labour votes. In fact, Labour stands to lose far more by failing to come out full throttle for remain. There has been a steady stream of Labour people coming across to the Liberal Democrats because  of our unequivocal position on Brexit.

Tagged and | 11 Comments

Jo: Lib Dems will take any action required to make sure voice of Remain heard in debates

Surrounded by Lib Dem women candidates and MPs, Jo Swinson this afternoon said that the Lib Dems were considering legal action to make sure the voice of remain was heard in the leaders’ debates. Watch her here.

An hour or so later, Sky announced that she would be invited to take part in their debate:

Tagged , , and | 2 Comments

ALDE Party Congress – a first time delegate’s thoughts

In the shadow of the ancient Athenian acropolis where Aristotle and Socrates once lectured on ideas that would go on to change the world, Hans van Baalen, president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE) launched the organisations 40th congress under the banners “mission is possible” and “liberal renaissance”. His audience included delegations from 67 full and associate member parties, as well as individual members who had assembled from across the European continent.

I had applied to the International Office upon learning of the exciting opportunity to attend the ALDE party congress as a Lib Dem …

Also posted in Europe / International | Tagged | 3 Comments

Labour’s refusal to back Remain is “Red meat for Lib Dems”

Labour’s Rebecca Long-Bailey, talking to Sky News presenter Sophy Ridge, refused to say whether Labour would back Leave or Remain in a referendum on any deal.

The Labour position is that they would form a government, negotiate their own deal and then put it to the public, but can’t say at this stage whether they would back Leave or Remain in that referendum. They don’t dare say Remain because their leader is not committed to that position and they daren’t say Leave because they will lose even more votes to us. But if they have negotiated a deal, the presumption has to be that they will back it. I mean, they aren’t going to say to the people “Don’t back this great deal we’ve done”, are they?

And they think that this is credible? They want their voters to do the equivalent of buying a lucky bag.

Sky News reporter Rob Powell said that this was “red meat for the Liberal Democrats.”

Tagged and | 27 Comments

Observations of an ex pat: Socialism vs Brexit

Boris Johnson made it clear. An election has been called to break the parliamentary deadlock on Brexit.  A “People v Parliament” poll.

Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn, however, appears to have failed to hear properly. In his opening salvo of the campaign battle he hardly mentioned Brexit. Instead the dyed-in-the-wool far-left Socialist took the opportunity to declare a class war on the “Establishment Elite.”

Corbyn is attempting to flip the 2019 election agenda away from Brexit in much the same way as he did in 2017.  This is for several reasons: 1- his party is hopelessly split on Brexit; 2- Corbyn’s plans to deal with Brexit are an inconsistent mish-mash 3- he needs an electoral platform that will appeal to both Leave and Remain Brexit voters and, finally, 4- the chaotic state of British politics offers  Jeremy Corbyn the best chance he has of ushering in the Socialist workers’ paradise that he has dreamt about for his entire political career.

The current disreputable state of British politics creates opportunities for demagogic figures to tout their over-simplified sound bite solutions to complex issues. What could be more simple – or divisive–than a clarion call to class war.?

On the other extreme end of the political spectrum sits a prime minister who appears determined to replicate the 17th century battle between the executive and parliament.  After a series of civil wars and a Glorious Revolution that battle ended with the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty. The 2016 referendum was not the “will of the people”. It was a narrow victory for an ill-conceived exit from Europe without due regard to the consequences. The country remains hopelessly divided on the issue and the parliament which Boris Johnson disdainfully dismisses is a reflection of that division– as it should be.

Tagged | 21 Comments

Hope for a brighter future

In this election there is everything to play for. Traditional voter loyalties have completely broken down, and nearly half the electorate are now regarded to be floating voters.

When talking to voters on the doorsteps and asking their thoughts on the current state of politics, the responses are dominated by the words “mess” and “shambles”.

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are not popular, and are not seen as being good options to lead our country. If we get smart we can easily present ourselves as the Stop Brexit, Liberal Democrat and None of the Above party, and hoover up enormous amounts of those floating voters.

It is fear that will deter people from voting Liberal Democrat. Not fear of our policies or any character flaws in our leader, but fear that voting for us lets in the populist or the revolutionary socialist, or fear that we will prop up Corbyn or Johnson in exchange for some scraps of power.

Saying we will support neither is not enough. We have to have an offering that shows our supporters that we have a path to power, and we have to have an offering that shows the floating voters that we can stop the cartoon villains that they so fear.

That offering is a proportional electoral system.

Tagged , and | 5 Comments

Mark Pack on “the other elections”

Quite rightly, nearly all our attention now is on winning public elections: winning those council by-elections coming in before the general election and winning then in the general election too.

There is also the tail-end of the party’s internal elections, with voting closing at 5pm on Friday next week (8 November) and most likely, given some of the problems with the voting system, quite a few members still to vote. (If you haven’t yet received your ballot paper, [email protected] can assist.)

Those internal contests matter. They will determine, for example, who is on the Federal Policy Committee (FPC), the group that will …

Tagged | 11 Comments

Lord William Wallace writes… Labour and the Liberal Democrats

Labour at Westminster is angry with the Liberal Democrats. They were – several Labour peers have insisted – moving slowly towards accepting that there would have to be a confirmatory referendum. And they felt that Boris Johnson would end up with no other way out than to accept such a referendum. And now, they complain, we have ‘given’ the Conservatives the election they want.

Don’t fall for this Labour narrative, if you hear it from a Labour activist near you. Their underlying fear is that they are in no state to win an early election, so the …

Tagged and | 30 Comments

We need to talk about how we use Facebook

For the AGM of our local party, our diligent party secretary recently emailed the local members outlining the elected positions (Membership Secretary, Diversity Officer etc.) of the local exec. He helpfully included a link to the party’s website with some guidance on what’s involved in each role, and what help and support is available from the party. For one role I looked at, the top 3 sources of support are:

It strikes me that, intentionally or otherwise, a large part of our party’s support network is being run through Facebook. This could mean that people who don’t have a Facebook account don’t get the support they need; or are put off from getting more involved in the party; or aren’t even aware of developments within the party. This strikes me as problematic:

  • Young people simply don’t use Facebook to the extent that people in older age cohorts do. If we’re relying on Facebook to organise ourselves, then we may be excluding a lot of people under 30.
  • Even for those people who do have a Facebook account, all the indications are that usage has dropped off a cliff, especially over the last 18 months.
Tagged | 12 Comments

Jo Swinson: The Prime Minister this country really needs

This country is suffering because we have a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition who play up fear and division. Britain needs a leader who can cut through the noise and grab people in the heart, highlighting the best of us, not the worst. We need someone to inspire us to be for each other, not against each other. Jo Swinson is that leader.

She combines humour, candour and plain speaking to bring people in. She reaches well beyond the liberal democrat comfort zone of our party by connecting with people. The way she wrote about the birth of her son Gabriel for his first birthday in June was absolutely beautiful. Don’t click on that if you are at all troubled by descriptions of childbirth.

And, during the Summer, after Boris Johnson, the man who famously toured the country in a bus with a great big lie on the side,  revealed that he liked to paint model buses, there was this:

When you connect with people on that very human level, they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say about the future of the planet, about what needs to happen to make our lives better.

Jo has an exceptional ability to communicate complicated messages in a way that means something to people. “Putting people and planet first” is practical and engaging.

And when did you last hear a politician talking about a loving country? We need more of that.

Tagged , and | 22 Comments

“Get Brexit done” – the historic big lie

In the General Election campaign, the electorate will be presented with a Tory promise to ‘Get Brexit Done’.

This is one of the slogans that will be repeated over and over again.

The message is that ‘chaos has reigned’, and now voters have a chance to vote Tory and ‘get it all over with’. The proposition is that if re-elected, PM Johnson’s regime will approve the two key pieces of Brexit legislation, and then immediately pull the UK out of the EU.

Tagged | 15 Comments

Jo: Is he going to run scared of debating with a girly swot?

The smell of chicken pervades the political atmosphere this morning.

Probably the most predictable aspect of this General Election is that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn would try to cut Jo Swinson out of the Leaders’s Debates. I mean, why would they want to be completely shown up by a fresh, original opponent with compelling arguments?

And so it looks very much like they are doing just that.

Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson told the BBC

However, when asked about a three-way discussion with Ms Swinson, the spokesman replied: “There are only two people who can be prime minister at the end of this campaign and I think the British public have a clear right to see them debate head-to-head on TV and hear their cases.”

And when Jo put Boris Johnson on the spot in  Parliament yesterday, he ignored her, choosing to make some bizarre crack about how Lib Dems were about dither and delay on Brexit. You couldn’t actually get much clearer than “Stop Brexit.” Watch here:

The exchange in full from Hansard:

Tagged , , , and | 15 Comments

Brexit as a failure of process

It bothers me greatly that for months now, Boris Johnson has been attacking Parliament – in terms that question its legitimacy as the sovereign democratic institution of our constitution – for the crime of having a different opinion on something to himself. Normally, in a Parliamentary democracy, if the Prime Minister has a different opinion to the Commons, it is he, not they who is, constitutionally, in the wrong.

Now of course, Johnson is entitle to his view and to express it, as is every other MP, and perhaps the problem is that the “other side” does not seem to have a voice. And the reason for this is that it isn’t clear who the other side is. The official opposition has largely taken a ‘wait and see’ approach to the whole business. There are a number of groups within Parliament, some seeking harder or softer Brexits, or a referendum, or to remain, or to keep quiet while your opponent makes a mistake.

7 Comments

Fortune favours the bold


And so we head into an election campaign as ‘the goose is getting fat’ and Brenda from Bristol boards up her front door to keep out invading journalists.

We’ve whirled around and around the entire gamut of constitutional and Brexit permutations many times, and so we end up with a general election when the Rubic’s Cube of parliamentary arithmetic will be re-spun. Then the whole darn thing will start again.

It is somewhat forbidding to face the prospect of knocking on doors in the ‘deep mid-winter’.

Tagged , , , and | 11 Comments

Jo on Today: This election is the chance to stop Brexit and deliver a positive, liberal future

Jo Swinson gave her first interview of the election campaign to the Radio 4 Today programme.

She said that neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Boris Johnson were fit to lead the country. Brexit would damage our public services and our economy and people now have the opportunity to stop it and the way to do that is to vote for the Liberal Democrats.

She highlighted how we are winning all over the country in places which voted to remain and to leave. In May we beat both Conservatives and Labour. She says that Leave voters respect the fact that we stand up for what we believe in.

She said that hundreds of seats are within range for us, even those with massive majorities. She pointed out that in 2015, the SNP overturned massive Labour majorities.

Both Labour and Conservative parties are offering different versions of Brexit while the Lib Dems offer a positive, liberal vision for the country.

I’ve known Jo for 15 years now, and I’ve seen how she is by nature a very collaborative person. She has always worked across parties. I remember catching up with her in her Westminster office just after she became a minister.  While we chatted, she signed a huge pile of letters to every MP saying that her door was open to them, writing personal messages on many of them. Her first instinct was to reach out across Parliament – even though by that stage the atmosphere there was deeply tribal.

Also posted in News | Tagged and | 3 Comments

Federalism and the Liberal Democrats

This week’s Economist (Bagehot column) addresses the implications of the current crisis for the UK constitution.

The Preamble to the Lib Dem Constitution says:

We ….. commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

Bagehot says: “High on the list of British oddities is that it is a composite of four nations—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Holding this group together was always difficult given the different sizes of the parts (England is ten times as populous as Scotland) and the history of internal colonisation. It has been made vastly more difficult by Brexit because Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Brexit increases the chance that Scotland will claim independence and, in the longer term, that Northern Ireland will join the Irish Republic. It also increases the pressure for American- or German-style federalism. The only way to prevent England from being seen to ride roughshod over the smaller nations of the United Kingdom may be to create regional assemblies or more powerful metropolitan governments” (my bold italics).

Brexit has shown up the close link between the failure of policies and the failure of our politics.

The Liberal Democrats and the UK as a whole must address constitutional reform not as a nerdy bit of Lib Dem policy-tinkering, but as the necessary central part of rebuilding trust in democratic politics. It will be top-down with policies, campaigns and leadership as well as bottom-up, demonstrating and leading in our communities to enable people to be engaged and powerfully involved. We should be a campaigning, insurgent force and not just the tame exponents of electoral tactics. Votes will be the result of our campaigning but should not be the purpose.

Our current policy is timid; tinkering with the machinery of government. Federalism, fair votes and new models of spreading power should be at the centre of our campaigning because they are necessary in order to address the big problems of poverty, inequality, climate change and powerlessness.

Tagged and | 12 Comments

The Environment Bill takes the emergency out of climate emergency and is full of holes

As the Brexit skirmishes continue, it is easy to lose track of other important pieces of legislation struggling to get parliamentary time. One of those is the Environment Bill. The second reading of the bill on 23 October was abruptly cancelled to make way for the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. That’s ironic as a large part of the Environment Bill is concerned with reinstating the environmental protection the UK will lose if it ceases to a member of the EU. The bill aims for a lot more, including a deposit return scheme for drinks containers, measures to improve air quality, and rules to ensure biodiversity net gain from housing and some other developments. 

It’s a great forward looking bill. At least, that’s what ministers say. In practice the bill is colander bill. It is full of holes. It fails to incorporate the principle of non-regression into law. It sets 2037 as the earliest date for any environmental targets and those targets are at the behest of ministers. It allows environmental policies to be watered down by ministers at a whim, including the target for biodiversity gain. It is a bill that takes the emergency out of the climate emergency. 

Tagged | 7 Comments

Britain is getting more socially liberal

There is, goodness knows enough bad news at the moment so a study by Kings College London and IPSOS which shows Britain is becoming socially more liberal is very welcome. 

The study looks at the same questions asked in 1989 and 2019 which makes it much easier to track the differences – and what differences they are!

In 1989 40% of British adults thought that homosexuality was morally wrong – in 2019 that was down to 13% while  people thinking that homosexuals should be treated ‘just like other people’ has increased from 23% to 64% 

On drug use the % thinking soft drugs such as cannabis are morally wrong has gone from 60% to 29% – there has also been a drop in people thinking the same of hard drugs such as heroin – but  at 67% ( down from 89%) it is still high 

On abortion the % thinking it is immoral has halved from 35% to 18% – and interestingly there is little difference  in the views of men and women (nor was there is 1989) 

Some areas haven’t changed much – the % thinking that having a sexual relationship with someone who is married to someone else is morally wrong has actually increased from 55% to 62% – because  men are now more likely to think this is wrong – and are  now aligned with the views of women. 

Tagged | 13 Comments

Coping with the hate

On Friday 25 October the Guardian reported on some research from Cardiff University and Edinburgh University which suggested that most leave voters who took part thought that violence towards MPs “was a price worth paying” for Brexit to be delivered – 71% in England, 70% in Wales, 60% in Scotland. The majority of remain voters also felt that potential violence was worth it if it meant staying in the EU – 58% in England, 56% in Wales, 53% in Scotland. The co-director of the research project at the Cardiff end declared that he was “flabbergasted” by these results.

These “violence worth it’ responders were of course talking about people’s violence, not theirs! But the easy tolerance of such hate crimes needs to be taken seriously. Lay that alongside Jennie Rigg’s account on this site of verbal abuse on social media at a time of severe family stress.

I felt as bad about Jennie’s departure from the Liberal Democrats as I did about Michael Meadowcroft leaving for a sustained period post-merger. I have huge respect for Jennie and it was good to share office premises with her when we had a Member of Parliament in Bradford East.

Lay alongside that my own experience in the summer/autumn of 2017. I was due to defend my council seat in May 2018. Along with other Board members, I had to take some very difficult decisions about the local Mechanics Institute, of which I was Chair, but the rescue operation was portrayed as a determination to close it. There was a scurrilous Facebook campaign which accused me of hypocrisy and betraying the local community. The perpetrators used language clearly intended to undermine and destabilise, alongside some nasty cartoons – replete with haloes and dog collars! One of them declared his intention to stand against me as an Independent.

We took the view that fighting this stuff head on was pointless and the best response was to carry on our usual campaigning to the best of our ability in the circumstances. Our organiser, also one of my ward colleagues, advised me not to read the more vicious posts. He would read them and keep me in the picture. In May, in a ward which voted 66% leave, I was returned with the usual majority of 200+ over Labour. The Independent was hammered in the only place that ultimately mattered – the ballot box.

Politically it worked out OK but I still bear the personal scars. I have never been a good sleeper but that summer my sleep patterns were shot to pieces. Fortunately I have found ways of managing this with strong support from my brilliant GP. She is very familiar with my political lifestyle!

So what do I learn from all this? Jennie asks “what are the solutions?” I have no easy answers. But  a rather less complicated question is “what are the responses?” I suggest three. First of all we need to recognise that we simply need to avoid reading most of the stuff from the keyboard warriors. This is not denial. Often it is having a care for our own sanity.

Tagged and | 13 Comments

We must embrace being the party of business

The next election gives us a real opportunity. Brexit is shattering traditional party loyalties and both tired, old-parties are rapidly shifting towards polarising extremes, alienating swathes of their traditional support base.  

Given this, the Liberal Democrats are increasingly able to offer a political lifeboat to those who believe in sensible and evidence-based, rather than ideological-based policies.

One group that is ripe for the taking in the current climate, is the business community. 

Traditionally, business has strongly supported the Conservatives. However Brexit, combined with the lurch to the right of the Conservatives under Boris Johnson, means increasingly business feels alienated from what once they may have considered their “natural home”. 

It’s not all about Brexit either, with the divergent views of business over their support for HS2 and opposition to discriminatory migration proposals, it is clear there is a growing rift between the current Conservative leadership and the business community. This, combined with our pro-EU, internationalist outlook, means that businesses alignment with our policy goals and values is much more of a natural fit than continued alignment with an increasingly isolationist Conservative Party. 

Under Jeremy Corbyn, with policies that resemble a 1970’s socialist, the Labour Party cannot and will not offer any form of a home for business. Indeed, at a business industry fringe at their conference in Brighton, it took Corbyn twenty minutes of his speech, before he even mentioned the word “business”. The current Shadow Business Secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, does not perform much better, and appears unreceptive to the idea that business and the private-sector must be part of the solution and not simply a problem. Given this, it seems likely that allies that Labour may once have had in business and industry, are likely to be dropping away even more rapidly than their Conservative counterparts.  

Tagged | 29 Comments

Lib Dems seize election initiative – calling for pre-Brexit poll on 9th December

The Observer’s Michael Savage reports tonight that the Liberal Democrats have a plan to allow Boris Johnson a pre-Christmas election. But it would mean that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill would be taken forward by the next Parliament. Or maybe not. If the Lib Dems win a majority in a December 9th poll, PM Jo Swinson would revoke Article 50.

If the Conservatives lost the election, there would almost certainly be a majority for a People’s Vote so either  way the path to stopping Brexit once and for all would be clear.

This plan is great because it means that Boris Johnson can’t accuse us of being scared of an election. Why would we be when we have the chance to make the biggest gains in our existence?

It also shows up the so-called official opposition who have been less than pro-active in trying to find a way out of this mess.

See Michael Savage’s Twitter thread here.

Tagged and | 87 Comments

Observations of an ex pat: Trump the pushover

Donald Trump likes to portray himself as strong man. A hard, tough man who stands up to the rest of the world, tweets it like it is and puts America first. The evidential facts tell a different story.  Trump is increasingly becoming the puppet of anti-democratic strongmen such as Turkish President Erdogan, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and Russia’s Vladimir Putin who use the American president’s craving for acceptance to manipulate him for their own ends.

Trump grew up in the New York borough of Queens when it was the first stop for the latest generation of immigrants struggling to survive in the land of opportunity.  The denizens of Manhattan looked down on Queens and all who dwelt there. Trump was determined to show the descendants of the Vanderbilts and Astors.  He would make billions; marry super models; become a reality TV star; plaster his name in 40ft high letters across giant skyscrapers and, finally, become president of the United States.

He wasn’t a strong man. He was a failed businessman who suffered six bankruptcies and was shunned by the New York aristocracy he courted. His life has been one long struggle against a debilitating inferiority complex. And like so many second-raters who seek justification through the accumulation of power and money he has sought the advice, approval and company of those who are truly powerful and ruthless. Nowhere is this more evident than in Trump’s policy in Eastern Europe.

On 13 May Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had a 45-minute meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. A meeting at the White House is no small matter. It is a much sought after honour which implicitly bestows on the visitor the presidential seal of approval. His audience was opposed by Trump’s national security advisers but pushed by Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. The security advisers made it clear that Orban should be blocked because he has politicised the Hungarian judiciary; taken control of the media; changed the electoral system to favour his party, adopted a strong pro-Russian stand; is rabidly anti-immigrant and euro-sceptic.

The State Department, National Security Council and others thought that Orban’s basic values and actions conflicted with American values  and could send the wrong message to America’s traditional allies and Congress. But Orban’s values did not conflict with Trump’s. He was keen to meet a strong personality who could get things done. As David Cornstein, Trump’s  Ambassador to Budapest said: “I can tell you, knowing the president for a good 25 or 30 years, that he would love to have the power that Viktor Orban enjoys…..”

Tagged | 8 Comments

When people talk about the poisoning of political discourse in this country, this is what they are talking about

Hi. I’m Jennie. I was a Lib Dem for a long time. Now I’m not. However, the bonds and friendships you forge over that kind of length of time don’t just break when you’re not a party member any more. So when my mum was rushed into hospital last night with a collapsed lung after having had surgery for cancer last week, there were a lot of Lib Dems among the people expressing sympathy and wishing me well.

Here’s one of them:

Now, yes, that’s the leader of a political party. But that’s also a human being, reaching out to a fellow human being in pain, with sympathy and compassion.

Don’t click through to the replies. Really, don’t. I’ve blocked all the nasty ones anyway… And yet maybe you should. Maybe you should go and look at these people who think the best response to someone expressing sympathy for a friend is to excoriate them. Maybe you should go and look at those replies and wonder: how did we get here?

I want to ask, what do those people think they are achieving? Who do they think they are convincing? Someone whose mum is in hospital with a collapsed lung after surgery to remove cancer? Someone who is gently reaching out to provide comfort? What good are they doing for their cause here? Who is going to read those replies and think “yeah, you stick it to the daughter of the cancer sufferer!” What possible benefit can they be gaining?

Having had a tiny taste of the abuse she gets just for existing in the public sphere, I have to say: I wouldn’t be Jo Swinson for all the tea in China right now. And I am not (I was famously described by one of the editors of this website as not) by any means a shrinking violet.

I don’t know what the solution to this is. And, you know, my mum is in hospital, I’ve got that to concentrate on right now. But there must BE a solution, and I think it behoves us all to find it. There must be a way we can conduct debate in this country without ending up in endless shouts of abuse.

Tagged , and | 20 Comments

Mark Pack writes…How we can do better than ever before

I’m the son of immigrants, one parent from Germany, the other from Poland. My family history is in miniature the troubled history of Europe, scarred by the horrors of extremism and war – and then my parents making a new home together in our country. 

It’s why our liberal democracy, despite all its flaws, is so precious to me. And why we have to protect it against the extremists and populists. 

To do that, we need to build a grassroots liberal movement, mobilising the millions who share our values. Such a movement can continue our successes this year winning more power, through campaigning and elections.

Winning elections at every level gives us more of that precious power to stop Brexit, to protect our planet, to heal the divisions in our society and to meet the needs of our local communities.

That’s why winning is so important – and that’s why I’ve put helping you win at the heart of my pitch to be President. 

The key task for the next President is to ensure we have the right strategy and the right organisation to win bigger than ever before – in local government, in the London Assembly, in the Welsh and Scottish governments, in Westminster and in future European elections too.

That’s a task well-suited to my record and my skills, including:

Tagged , and | 1 Comment

Of course the Lib Dems oppose exposing our NHS in future trade deals

If you’re seeing attacks from Labour types on social media tonight, saying that we didn’t vote for their amendment which, amongst other things, called for the NHS to be protected in future trade deals, ignore them.

Political parties often do this. It’s a silly game and I don’t like it when we do it, either.

It goes like this.

You lay down an amendment that has a bit of good stuff in it, and you combine it with something that another party just isn’t going to go for. Then when they don’t vote for your amendment you go after them on social media.

Today Labour’s amendment read as follows;

At end add ‘but respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech does not repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to restore a publicly provided and administered National Health Service and protect it from future trade agreements that would allow private companies competing for services who put profit before public health and that could restrict policy decisions taken in the public interest.’

Now I know that many, including me, in this party had concerns about the reforms in the 2012 Act. But there was some good stuff in there, on social care and on mental health, both issues very important to us. So even if we think that the Act isn’t perfect, we would go with amending rather than appealing it.

So we didn’t vote for the amendment.We didn’t vote against it either. We abstained.  However, we have good form on the NHS and trade deals.  For a start, we have on very many occasions challenged the government on exactly this point. We do not want to see the NHS undermined by Donald Trump, thank you very much. Vince Cable used to challenge the government on this all the time. Look at this from February last year:

The Prime Minister’s non-answer to my question today can only infer that our NHS is indeed for sale under the Conservatives.

Her pathetic non-committal response, failing to even mention our health service once, stands in stark contrast to guarantees given in 2015 by the EU trade negotiator with the US during the TTIP negotiations that our NHS would be protected.

Unfortunately Brexit Britain, standing on our own, will be in a far weaker negotiating position.

 

Ed Davey said here that “we must make sure that the NHS is not up for grabs in any trade deal.”

Jo Swinson also talked about the danger to the NHS during the leadership campaign in an interview with the Standard. 

At the time of the Brexit vote we had Obama. Now the world is much more unstable. There’s the rise of China, Putin, strong men leaders — do you want to be at the mercy of these superpowers? They aren’t going to be giving us great terms on a trade deal; there’s chlorinated chicken, the NHS is on the table. Frankly that is a cause for concern.

We need to be a wee bit careful when we are under social media attack from Labour or (or SNP types for that matter). We can be inclined to think they must somehow be right – when in fact the trolls are at best grossly misrepresenting the facts.  It is hardly surprising that Labour want to throw some mud to deflect attention from the fact that their MPs helped get the awful Withdrawal Agreement Bill over its first parliamentary hurdle last night.

Tagged and | 54 Comments

Sam Gyimah MP writes: Why it would be a fatal error for Parliament to pass Boris Johnson’s Deal in three days

In the almost 10 years I have been an MP, I have never seen the timetable for debating a Bill become such an issue.

But, it’s not just because it’s to do with Brexit.

Let’s be clear…the Deal we are debating is a constitutional treaty between the UK and the EU and its 27 member states that will set the foundations for our lives for decades to come. It is not like any deal that most people have been familiar with or negotiated in their time.

There are actually two deals here – two Brexits being negotiated. We have the deal for Northern Ireland, which is soft-Brexit, and the deal for the rest of the UK which is clearly a hard-Brexit.

So, we are being asked to analyse each deal on their own, how they interact together and how they link us with the EU in three days?

It shouldn’t be acceptable for the Government to give us this little time to properly scrutinise their plans. Nikki Di Costa, an expert on Parliamentary procedure and close advisor to Boris Johnson, said only a few months ago that four weeks isn’t enough time to debate Theresa May’s deal, so 72 hours is absolutely shocking and an affront to our democracy.

To put this in perspective, we will have spent longer discussing the Wild Animals in Circuses Act, something which affected 19 animals at the time of debate, than debating the future of our country.

A line often used by Brexiteers is that we have had three years to debate this. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

This is the first time we have seen the actual wording of the deal. What we have been debating up until now are the different ways we could leave the EU, but the Deal we have been presented with this week is the first time we have seen the actual plan and the legal consequences that flow from that and it needs proper scrutiny.

The Government is trying to weaponise the emotional aspect of this debate by saying ‘Get It Done’. But we have to get real and understand what this Deal will mean in the months ahead.

Boris Johnson will be able to go for No Deal in December 2020 and Parliament will not be able to stop it – all he has to do is fail to present any Free Trade Deal to Parliament and we will simply crash out.

Tagged , , and | 11 Comments

Review: Official Secrets – and contemporary parallels

Go to see ‘Official Secrets’.  It will remind you of the hard choices Liberals have to make in swimming against the tide of the received wisdom of the public debate.  And it will remind you that we stuck out our necks, against the received wisdom of almost the entire media, both the main parties, and much expert opinion, in challenging the case for the Iraq war.

The film is about Katharine Gun, a GCHQ employee with doubts about the drift towards the invasion of Iraq, who leaks (to the Observer) a memo from the US National Security Agency requesting material on representatives of states on the UN Security Council that could be covertly used to pressure them into supporting the US motion to authorise the use of force against Saddam Hussein.  It follows the subsequent investigation, her arrest, the involvement of Liberty in her defence, and after a lengthy delay the government abandonment of her prosecution on the first day of the trial.  There is much detail on the pursuit of reliable counter-evidence to contest the government’s case, the interaction between journalists and lawyers in London and Washington, and the uncovering of information on how advice to our government on the legal case for intervention had been altered under pressure from the US Administration and No.10.  

It’s well constructed; it links the personal tensions and agonies with the wider political context.  Several well-known living people are portrayed – some more sympathetically than others.  Good triumphs in the end, after much skulduggery.

It’s easy to forget how risky we felt it to be at that time for us to contest the dominant narrative of weapons of mass destruction and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qu’aida.  The film shows even the Observer editor and many of its senior staff resisting the plausibility of covert efforts to fix UN authorization and evidence being twisted.  I remember going with Ming Campbell  to a briefing, on ‘Privy Council terms’, from two very senior intelligence officials, and having afterwards to assess how far we had been persuaded by their presentation.  Charles Kennedy had to resist strong pressure from Blair’s government, and weigh up the costs of being attacked by most of the press against the case for refusing to accept the government’s rationale for war.   We stuck our necks out, without complete confidence that we knew what was happening; but our instincts proved right.

Tagged , , and | 4 Comments

Canadian Liberals win Federal Election, but lose majority

The Liberal Party of Canada have beaten the Conservatives in the Federal Election but have lost their majority in ‘the Hill’.

The Liberals won 157 seats (down 20), with the Conservatives trailing behind on 121. It was a good night for the separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ), who won 32 seats in the region (up from 10 in 2015), while the NDP were pushed into fourth after losing nearly half of their seats. The Green Party trebled their numbers in the house to three.

The real story is that the Liberals actually lost the popular vote to the Conservatives and shed nearly 1.3 million votes on 2015. By narrowly winning ‘ridings’ in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have just about squeezed their way on top.

It’s been a long 40-day campaign for the Liberals who have endured pressure from the Conservative machine, revelations about Trudeau’s ‘Blackface’ past, and a resurgent separatist movement in their Quebec heartlands.

After winning an outright majority in 2015, Trudeau had an easy ride in passing most of his manifesto (a credible 92% of his manifesto promises kept), but now needs to use all of his political skill to maintain power.

 So, what happens next?

Similar to what Johnson is facing in Westminster, its very difficult to pass any legislation as a minority, and so Trudeau will need to reach out across the House.

Tagged , and | 22 Comments

Super Lib Dem Lords on Super Saturday: Jonny Oates

This deal is the beginning of a tortuous process, said Jonny Oates when he spoke in the Lords, and it would be the poorest who would be hit hardest. Here is his speech in full:

My Lords, the Prime Minister, we are told, has succeeded where all said he would fail. He has returned apparently triumphant, with a deal that the nay-sayers said could not be done. Or so his champions claim. Not all the nay-sayers doubted he could do it. I certainly did not, and I suspect that many others who have studied him over the years did not either. Experience suggested that he had just the qualities to succeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said, he is the quintessential showman, the man of smoke and mirrors who always prefers style over substance. It is not so hard, after all, to get a deal if you do not care much about what is in it or anything about the people you are prepared to betray to get it.

The Prime Minister is well practised in the art of abandoning people who are no longer of interest to him, as the DUP is now finding out. I cannot pretend to have huge sympathy for the DUP, because if you make government a purely transactional matter to get what suits you, you should not be surprised when the entity you are transacting with repays you in kind.

Nor do I have much sympathy for the DUP’s claims that the deal breaches the consent principle. It did not seem to care much about the consent of the nationalist community, or indeed the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, when it backed the disastrous policy of Brexit. We all failed Northern Ireland ahead of the referendum in not recognising the full extent of the difficulties that would be thrust upon its people, but no party failed it more than the DUP, which has done more to undermine the union than any allegedly unionist party in history. It is living proof of the adage that tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

So much then for how we have got here. What about where we have actually arrived? It is a dismal location. Someone described it to me as lipstick on Theresa May’s deal, but that implies something more attractive, and the changes that the PM has secured make it less attractive, ​if that is possible. It is nothing like the outcome promised in the referendum: it undermines the integrity of our union; it makes one part of our country subject to the courts of the European Union, which the Brexiters told us was unforgivable; it puts a border down the Irish Sea, which the PM told us would be unconscionable; it will make us all substantially poorer—estimates suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has said, that the deal will leave people around £2,000 worse off on average; far from having millions to spend on the NHS, we will have billions less to spend on everything. So much for the promises of the leave campaign. These are not abstract consequences; they are real-life consequences that will impact people up and down the country.

Tagged and | 1 Comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Andy Daer
    We’re already hearing that Israel wants to see every single weapon gone from Gaza before it takes the first step in its side of the deal, and withdraws it’s...
  • paul barker
    The Population of London has gone up by Half since the 1990s, did anyone vote for that ? Large parts of London are now dominated by huge tower blocks, did anyon...
  • paul barker
    I agree completely but its going to take more than Political Parties on The Left talking honestly about the pros & cons of migration, we need to educate the...
  • Jana
    “ Now, I’m not an economist or an expert on manpower planning, so if you were to ask me what would be appropriate, I’d have to say that I haven’t a clue...
  • Big Tall Tim
    Thank you Kevin. Theakes - That is correct, so good news for our team in the target constituency of Hamble Valley....