Category Archives: Op-eds

Jack Meredith

If Plaid Cymru takes the lead, Welsh Liberal Democrats must be ready to engage

By Jack Meredith | Sat 20th September 2025 - 2:53 pm

Recent polling carried out ahead of the 2026 Welsh Elections suggests that, for the first time since the inception of a devolved Welsh administration, Labour will not be the largest party, with both Plaid and Reform vying to be the leader of a minority government.

The race to lead the Senedd has yet to begin, but the Welsh Liberal Democrats must consider their place in a Welsh political landscape that, for the first time since 1999, Plaid Cymru could lead the government. I’ll save speculation for a Reform-led Welsh government for another time.

Plaid Cymru’s aim for the longest time was to secede Wales from the UK, and have it rejoin the EU as an independent nation. Its current leader, Rhun ap Iorweth, however, has ruled out plans for independence within the first term of a Plaid Cymru-led government. Plaid’s current policies, according to their website, include securing “fair funding for Wales” from Westminster to invest in areas like public transport and healthcare, implementing an “Essentials Guarantee” scheme to ensure Welsh citizens in need receive “at least the minimum required for their daily life”, and petitioning the UK government to withdraw from the international arms supply trade.

It is fair to say that in quite a few areas, the Welsh Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru can find common ground. We both support the strengthening of LGBTQ+ rights, reintegration into the EU, the creation of a National Care Service, and a wide array of climate and environmental policies. It would make sense, should it come to it, for the Welsh Liberal Democrats to work with Plaid Cymru, whether it be a coalition, supply and confidence deal, etc.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the I word: independence. While Plaid’s long-term goal is Welsh Independence, the Liberal Democrats are a federalist party, so in that regard, we do stand in contrast to one another. But herein lies an opportunity to sidestep issues of independence and focus on shared democratic reform.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 8 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Kirk Consequences

By Tom Arms | Sat 20th September 2025 - 9:56 am

MAGA and President Trump promised revenge for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and it has already started.

Late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel has followed Stephen Colbert into the laughter wilderness after being “suspended indefinitely” by ABC hours following a comment from  Brendan Carr, chairman of the broadcasting regulator agency the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the commission would take action against the network for Kimmel’s comments.

Kimmel made the mistake of criticising MAGA and the president for blaming left-wing radicals for the assassination of Kirk when, said Kimmel, it was more likely to have been a right-wing terrorist.

ABC refused to say that the “indefinite suspension” was related to Kimmel’s comments, but the juxtaposition of events is undeniable.

After the sacking, Carr said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people, “and that the FCC was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” He added: “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly…or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

Trump simply said of Kimmel’s departure: “Great News for America” and called for the dismissal of two more late show comics—Jimmy Fallon and Set Myers. The Democrats have condemned the sacking as an “attack on freedom of speech and democracy.”

Money talks in America and Kimmel’s departure is almost certainly linked to a planned multi-billion dollar involving the distributing channels. The controversial merger would have created a monopoly which needed the approval of Brendan Carr and the FCC.

Jimmy Kimmel’s is not a lone target. President Trump is suing the New York Times for $15 billion and Trump-supporting tech tycoon Larry Ellison is bidding for CNN. Carr has made it clear that any liberal-leaning broadcaster—radio or television—is in his sights. Every eight years broadcasters have to renew their license. Usually this is a pro forma exercise but the FCC can deny a license if it “fails to serve the public interest”. Carr maintains that he determines what the “public interest” is. So far, however, he has not revoked a broadcasting license.

There was no suggestion by Carr or anyone in the Trump Administration about the suitability of Fox News’s license when Fox host Brian Kilmeade said that mentally ill homeless people should be given lethal injections. “Just kill them,” he added.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
The Hon John Birmingham MLA

The Independent View: The Blue Hole should concern the global community

By The Hon John Birmingham MLA | Sat 20th September 2025 - 8:15 am

In 1986, the Falkland Islands were granted our own Exclusive Economic  Zone (EEZ) and set about establishing a fishing industry. Overnight we went from being sheep farmers to fisherfolk and I remember that time well. This was an exciting time for the Falkland Islands and one that had a transformational effect on our economy. 

Given that fish are a national resource, we have worked hard to develop a licensing and taxation regime that allows the fishing companies to be profitable and the owners well rewarded, whilst at the same time ensuring the wider population benefits through free education from primary school to university and free healthcare etc. Our hugely successful fishing companies also make a significant contribution, not just to our economy and government revenue, but also to our community through the sponsorship of sports teams, the restoration of local landmarks and in many other ways. 

Within the Falkland Islands’ EEZ we have established a robust range of systems and measures to combat illegal fishing with vessels licensed by the Falkland Islands permitted to fish in our waters and only then with strict oversight. We have a Fisheries Protection Vessel, Lillibet, and proudly work alongside a number of international partners and NGOs to ensure that we remain vigilant against illegal activities. 

I am proud that the Falkland Islands have some of the strongest environmental protections in the world and that our drive to improve the human rights of those working aboard vessels in our waters have been lauded by the United Nations.

The Blue Hole however represents not only a threat to the economy and environment of the Falkland Islands and the wider region, but it is also a grave issue of concern for the global community. 

Continue reading »
Also posted in The Independent View | Tagged | 2 Comments
Richard Dickson

In praise of volunteers!

By Richard Dickson | Fri 19th September 2025 - 10:25 am

This weekend our Conference in Bournemouth will be full of volunteers. And, for a myriad of very good reasons, tens of thousands of more Lib Dem volunteers will not be in Bournemouth. At Conference a handful of volunteers will receive awards from the Party for their service. And that’s right and proper. But all of them need cherishing and recognising as the heroes that they are.

There is almost nothing in paid employment that can prepare anyone for working with volunteers. Leadership and team management training in paid employment relates exclusively to working with colleagues who are paid to do what they do. Ultimately, where there is a formal contract of employment, the incentive of a positive appraisal, the reward of a performance bonus or even a promotion can be used to motivate people to get things done.

But managing people where they are doing what they’re doing simply out of a sense of belief and conviction is another higher set of skills altogether. Especially when the volunteer is almost certainly juggling their own paid employment, as well as being stressed with domestic responsibilities, the burdens of elected office and other community commitments. It’s about winning over the volunteer’s head and heart, their hands and their feet, their time and their wallet.

I’ve worked in the corporate world, higher education and in the voluntary and community sector. The latter is often wrongly referred to as The Third Sector, as though somehow it’s inferior to whatever are the first and second sectors. Sadly the charitable sector is littered with examples of organisations that have taken their volunteers for granted. Look at the damaging impact on volunteer engagement that can arise from service changes, from botched reorganisations and from the miscommunication of a rebranding.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 7 Comments
Mark Corner

When Newton Ferrers Mums outface Whitehall

By Mark Corner | Fri 19th September 2025 - 8:55 am

 Some thirty years ago (according to his famous Diaries) Alan Clark MP, at the time a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, was sent to Truro in Cornwall to beef up support for the Conservative candidate in a by-election caused by the tragic death of local Liberal MP David Penhaligon in a road accident. Clark complained that despite Truro being ‘natural’ Conservative territory, the candidate he supported was likely to lose (indeed he did). This produced a lament in the Diaries about the way the Liberals got ‘dug in’ by working hard in constituencies (his visits to his own constituency in Plymouth from Saltwood Castle in far-off Kent were notoriously infrequent) and once dug in were very hard to dig out! They geared people up on local issues of limited importance, Clark claimed, and made them feel that they were able to challenge the establishment and take on the world. Hence the reference to the Newton Ferrers mums.

 What Clark lamented in Liberal (about to become Liberal Democrat) behaviour has been a feature of the party’s commitment to community politics for a long time. In a speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in March 2023, Ed Davey declared that ‘community politics is something our party is built on. It is what sets us apart from other parties.’  The Lib Dem leader talked of candidates being ‘connected to the communities they represent’, ‘hearing their concerns on the doorstep’ (as opposed to making cold calls on a phone) and of ‘first winning their trust – and then ultimately their votes.’

Of course, it can be said that this is what all politicians say, whatever party they represent. But it isn’t. Keir Starmer caused some criticism in The Guardian a couple of weeks back, when he talked of focusing on ‘delivery, delivery, delivery,’ as if he was managing a company that was trying to deal with angry customers who found their deliveries behind schedule. The electors had been turned into passive recipients of goodies from their elected representatives.

 Where politics is concerned, the voter is a citizen, not a customer. It may be an advantage that Lib Dems, unlike Labour and the Conservatives, have never had a natural constituency (at least since the time of the nonconformist conscience) to which they could ‘deliver’ when they were in power. They have had to build up support in the way Ed Davey describes. 

  Nowadays there is also Reform to reckon with. As John Curtice pointed out in a recent analysis for the BBC, Reform appeals to those who, like the Brexiteers a decade ago, feel threatened by changes in society they cannot handle. Foreigners are undesirable, some sexual orientations are undesirable if they’re even possible, refugees are deceiving at best, dangerous at worst and climate change is an invention of woke scientists. Meanwhile speeches emphasise the ‘destruction of Britain’ and the ‘erosion of Britain’ (Elon Musk), offering a constant litany of all things bad so that people can convince themselves that everything is hopeless. It is at this point that the would-be dictator inserts himself as the ‘deliverer’ who will put things right. Stay passive and watch what I can do with the power you give me. It is a technique perfected by Trump. Elect me and I’ll end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Then everyone can sleep safely in their beds. Be nice to me with your royal pageantry and I’ll deliver you a nice deal on tariffs.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
Nicholas Chan

Why the Conference debate on protecting the rights of Hong Kongers is important

By Nicholas Chan | Thu 18th September 2025 - 3:15 pm

Flyer Yes to F34 for rally on 22 September at 8:45 am. The long awaited ‘China Audit’ was not published other than a ministerial statement.  Legitimate reasons? Though in 2023, the Intelligence & Security Committee (‘ISC’) of Parliament published their report. The China Audit could provide elected representatives a comprehensive document demonstrating the complexity of the UK-China relationship, Britain’s interests and UK’s strategy and position. The government cannot be held accountable without its scrutiny. Why do PM Starmer’s ministers try to wave through Beijing’s application for a mega Embassy as a mere “planning application”? Why is his Chancellor attempting trade deals when former PM Cameron’s warm relations with China clearly demonstrated a history of broken promises on trade? Hence, when it was announced that China is left off the Enhanced Tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme in the hope of illusional economic benefits, the public is less informed of the risk of Chinese government’s influence. Subsequently, our agencies are less able to monitor and shield our institutions from China’s meddling in our democracy. China is notably omitted from the Enhanced Tier which included Russia, North Korea and Iran. President Xi asserts his strategic leadership in this triumvirate bloc. I would reason that by adding China to the FIRS Enhanced-tier, is even more critical now given that no publicly available version of the China Audit has been released.

The threats from China are real. 

First, in the era of misinformation, it is easy to discount the ambition, depth and scale of malign influence in the UK, especially given the breadth and depth of the work of the CCP’s United Front Work Department. This is something many liberal democracies have only recently begun to grasp. For example, for years the Chinese influence agent Christine Lee was called out. But these concerns were casually discounted by many. Entrenched within UK’s political parties, other agents orchestrated community-aid groups to frame a “democratic voice” against these warnings. Another example is Beijing’s “elite-capture” – getting UK politicians to become a poster child for its global institutions. Politicians have attempted to discount the risk of AIIB and IOMed to the Rules-Based International Order by framing these institutions in the language of multipolarity and multilateralism. However, these institutions are not truly multilateral, as by design they imply and facilitate Chinese, meaning the CCP, leadership. Enhanced-tier FIRS will improve awareness among UK politicians, ensuring China is correctly framed, like its strategic partners – Russia, North Korea and Iran, as a threat.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | Leave a comment
Duncan Brack

For people, for planet

By Duncan Brack | Thu 18th September 2025 - 1:45 pm

One of the key debates at this year’s autumn conference will be on the party’s new climate policy paper, For People, For Planet – on Sunday afternoon, kicking off at 3.15pm.

In the six years since we last published a comprehensive climate policy paper (Tackling the Climate Emergency, 2019) much has changed. With record-breaking temperatures, wildfires, floods and droughts, the threat posed by uncontrolled global heating is becoming ever-more obvious. In the UK, however, at least we now have a government that takes the issue seriously, unlike Boris Johnson’s (which paid lip service to the challenge but didn’t achieve much) or Rishi Sunak’s (which became actively hostile). Yet Labour’s approach is still not good enough – in supporting airport expansion, for example, or in failing to understand the linkages between the climate and nature emergencies, or in being too slow to undo the damage caused by Brexit. 

The Liberal Democrat approach is different. For People, For Planet is based on three key themes. First, putting people first: the measures needed to address the climate, nature and resilience challenges must be equitable, fair and affordable. This includes lowering electricity costs and offering support to all households for investments such as insulation and heat pumps; assisting low-income households with a social electricity tariff and targeted free home energy improvements; creating a Just Transition Commission to develop just transition plans and provide funding support for vulnerable communities; and developing policies in partnership with those they affect, including citizen input through a National Climate Assembly, and local engagement.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 12 Comments

What liberals need to know from Reform UK conference

By Conference Tourist | Thu 18th September 2025 - 11:45 am

Reform UK held their party conference at the Birmingham NEC at the start of the month. Delegates queued for an hour to get in on the first day as an estimated 6,000 activists attended.

The mood amongst delegates could not have been more buoyant – this is a party that believes it is going places. Delegates who had been to a previous Reform conference said it was unrecognisable compared to last year’s event.

News organisations, especially GB News, were everywhere. Wherever you looked, the branding and presentation was highly professional. Whatever outsiders might think, this is a party that believes it can form the next Government. Both the polls and the bookies’ odds suggest they might be right!

Obviously we’re some distance from the next General Election, but this Conference showed that the party is thinking seriously about how it would USE the power of Government.

First up, Nigel Farage appointed Zia Yusuf to be Reform’s Policy Chief and he will develop the policies for a Reform Government across the board – which will not necessarily be tied to positions they held at the last General Election. Reform’s membership or conference will likely have little say on what those policies will be – this is an incredibly top-down party.

But even without the details of the policies, there’s some things that are crystal clear about how a Reform UK administration would start.

Reform UK wants to restore ‘Parliamentary democracy’. What they mean by that is removing anything that might restrict a Government’s power to take action – annoying things such as the law, human rights, experts, scientists, senior civil servants, scrutiny, oversight, checks and balances and so on. They’ve got the Project 2025 Trump playbook and they will bring it to Westminster if they win power.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 13 Comments
Judi Conner

Calling out the Gaza genocide

By Judi Conner | Thu 18th September 2025 - 10:13 am

Genocide. Genocide. Genocide.

For two years this word has been taboo as we’ve watched Israel carrying out its atrocities in Gaza. Most of us have avoided using it for fear of….what?  Yes, we’ve rightly considered ‘genocide’ a powerful, extreme word, largely associated with the horrors of the Holocaust and Rwanda: a word that mustn’t be used lightly, without proper investigation of the true facts. But let’s be honest. We’ve also been terrified to call out the blatant killing of civilians and ethnic cleansing in Gaza for what it is, because in all likelihood we’d be accused of antisemitism or supporting Hamas terrorism. 

But on Tuesday this week things changed. The United Nations’ Human Rights Council published a report by an Independent International Commission of Inquiry into Israel’s actions in Gaza. It concluded that “Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Commission of Inquiry urges Israel and all States to fulfil their legal obligations under international law to end the genocide and punish those responsible for it.” 

Suddenly ‘genocide’ in Gaza is no longer the subject of conjecture and hypothesis. it brings us back to facts, using international law and carefully-researched evidence as the yardstick.

More specifically, the Commission, which has been investigating the events on and since 7 October 2023 for the last two years, concludes that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”

“The Commission finds that Israel is responsible for the genocide in Gaza,” said Navi Pillay, Chair of the Commission, who headed the tribunal into the Rwanda Genocide. “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.” At the report’s announcement Judge Pillay also called the findings “a moral outrage and a legal emergency”.

Defending the Report against an intense backlash from Israel, Pillay and her colleagues have been quick to point out that, far from being pro-Hamas, the Commission took a strong stance against Hamas on 10th October 2023, denouncing Hamas atrocities against Israel as war crimes. They also stress that “explicit statements by Israeli civilian and military authorities and the pattern of conduct of the Israeli security forces indicate that the genocidal acts were committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as a group.” In other words, key evidence of Israel’s intentions of genocide has come from the blatant words and actions of Israel’s leadership itself.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 8 Comments
Alan Grant

Trump in the UK: On the importance of respecting the office, if not the man

By Alan Grant | Thu 18th September 2025 - 8:03 am

I don’t expect to find many fans of Donald J. Trump on Lib Dem Voice. Maybe from the old days when he was the gold-lined host of the US version of The Apprentice who delivered every iconic catchphrase with the un-self-conscious bravado and camp cattiness of a drag queen, but certainly not now. 

He is not our kind of chap. 

The Donald offends mainstream British liberalism. He is brash, it is considered. He is ostentatious, it is reserved. He talks about how great he is and the amazing things he has done. British liberalism would rather die. 

His affront to the quiet civility of our brand of liberalism is so potent that it has altered perspectives in Britain of what America is. Trump is such an all-encompassing, room-dominating character that is difficult to separate him from anything around him. This power has led to London Mayor Sadiq Khan criticising Trump as he touched down for his second state visit to the UK, it also led to Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey declining an invite to a state banquet. 

The pre-emptive hangover from Brand Trump is so strong that it has led many of us down a dangerous path. His once-in-a-generation ability to generate headlines has meant that many have forgotten that there is a difference between the Presidency and the President. 

Donald John Trump is the President of the United States of America; he is not the Presidency.

He occupies the Oval Office now, not for all time. 

In just a few years, the people of America will pick another person for the job and Trump will be barred from holding it again. Such is the nature of their Constitution. Trump is temporary, the Presidency, and what it represents to the American people, is forever. 

Perhaps British people, including liberals, struggle with this because we have a permanent, non-political institution, embodied in one person, who fulfils our head of state requirements. 

For us, the duties of representing the country, its people, and its way of doing things are forever barred from the political arena so it’s hard for us to imagine its politicisation. God Save The King indeed!

But, thanks to a little family squabble beginning in the mid-1770s, our American cousins do have a political appointee as their head of state and he is, at time of writing in our country. We should, as much as many of us find the man himself lacking in decorum, afford the customary and due respect and welcome to the office. Keep calm and, with gritted teeth, if necessary, carry on!

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 3 Comments

Time for English members to vote on their representatives

By Callum Robertson and Simon McGrath | Wed 17th September 2025 - 5:35 pm

A week ago, Party members in England received an email that may have left some of them puzzled. It asked if they wished to nominate candidates for an election for the English Party representatives to various Federal Party Committees, such as the Federal Policy Committee and the Conference Committee. The unusual thing is that while they can nominate candidates, they don’t get a vote.

Ten years ago, as the Party confronted a disastrous general election result, the Autumn Conference made a significant change to who could attend our twice-yearly Conferences and how people were elected to the Federal Committees that run the Party. It decided that any member could attend Conference and all members would  be entitled to vote in the elections to a number of Federal Committee – One Member, One Vote ( OMOV) 

It seems extraordinary now, but that wasn’t how things were always done. Before then, each local party elected representatives to Conference, and only they could vote in Federal elections. At the time of the debate, Mark Pack wrote an article for LDV entitled, “Would you abolish One Member One Vote if it was already in place?” 

With the benefit of ten years’ experience of OMOV we  can see he was spot on.

Following the decision in 2016, Regional Party Constitutions in England were changed to reflect the principle of OMOV in the way Regional Parties were organised, so that all members could attend their conference and vote for Regional Executives. But that change was not reflected in how English reps to Federal Committees are elected. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 5 Comments
Ben Rich

The Lib Dems have a rare opportunity to make the case for migration

By Ben Rich | Wed 17th September 2025 - 4:00 pm

The Lib Dems have a rare opportunity to make the case for migration

Rarely has there been so much space on the political spectrum for the Lib Dems and so little appetite on their behalf to fill it.

Ok, that maybe a little harsh: Ed Davey’s refusal to attend the banquet with Donald Trump is more than a stunt but by tying it to Gaza alone it has become a tactical weapon with which to outflank Keir Starmer, rather than a wider statement about the threat of authoritarianism and the corruption of democratic norms embodied by the US President.  It is the right target and the right action, but the wrong critique.

His call for a cross-party response to Musk’s weekend rant is potentiall more substantial, but the question now is whether this is a space he intends to own or he will revert to type.  

In contrast, the Lib Dem leadership has absented itself from the summer’s debate around immigration and small boats.  There is a compelling argument to be made that immigration numbers have little to do with small boats.  What’s more, the underpinning assumption behind the whole argument – that immigration is bad for Britain – is well worth challenging, but no one will challenge it, other than the far left who, as message-deliverers, merely damage their own cause.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 3 Comments
Tony Paterson

Keep calm and carry on urgently re-arming 

By Tony Paterson | Wed 17th September 2025 - 1:30 pm

Is our Party facing up better than others to the high cost of the UK re-arming? l have recently seen senior Lib  Dems whom I rate highly, saying (in their own words but probably echoing the similar thoughts of many senior Lib Dem colleagues) :-

 ‘We support the aim, demanded by Donald Trump, of spending 3.5% of our GDP on defence, with an additional 1.5% on ancillary spending – but that is as long as we can have until 2035 to achieve this – and as long as we won’t be required to reduce spending on the NHS or welfare as a result.”

You can see where they’re coming from with this mindset (shared by many Labour MPs), not only because the latter are our two cherished spending priorities but also because everyone knows that whichever Party sticks its head above the parapet first over the cost of re-arming, is likely, except in the long term, to get its head shot off by voters.

This is because (for the same reason) voters haven’t been prepared yet. Living in a nationwide bubble of self-deception is more comfortable, with leaders and led relying on each other’s lack of realism.

The best way round ‘ostrich’ thinking on this supremely important issue is for:

  1. The Lib Dems to say to Keir Starmer, privately : “lf you tell the voters the truth” , “we will then openly back you up and not cheaply and cynically undermine you over your courageous stand.”
  2. Us to urge Labour, in the same confidential communication, to coordinate with EU Governments about ‘coming out’ with their own voters, saying the same thing to them at the same time as we and Labour proclaim it in the UK.

George Cunningham, ex-Army Officer and one of our Party’s most persuasive spokespeople on the threat posed by Putin to Western Europe, is right to have been  saying, for some time now that we have to plug whatever gaps in our defence we can by around 2027. 

Expecting Putin to give NATO until 2035 is, as recognised by many in Liberal Democrat Friends of Ukraine (LDFoU) and our sister Party `Affiliated Organisation’ (AO) Liberal Democrat Friends of the Armed Forces, a pipedream. 

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 14 Comments
Gareth Roberts

Capital punishment: how can we get national government to love London again?

By Gareth Roberts | Wed 17th September 2025 - 11:55 am

Shard in the distance taken from the EmbankmentIn many ways, London represents a triumph of liberalism.

London is a city where people from all backgrounds come to make their home. A city of dynamism and enterprise, closely intertwined with the global economy. A city of remarkable history and forward-thinking culture. A city thriving as a cosmopolitan melting pot, with strong communities and individuals free to be themselves.

It is for precisely these reasons that certain politicians denigrate the capital, portraying it either as a suspicious, crime-ridden hellhole or an effete hub of snooty, overprivileged elitism. Or sometimes all of these at the same time.

I vehemently disagree with their illiberal views, but at least I can understand why reactionary populists target the capital.

What perplexes me, however, is the government’s attitude.

London is undoubtedly a UK success story. In economic terms alone, the capital accounts for almost a quarter of the UK’s entire economic output. London creates a surplus for the Treasury of upwards of £40 billion – providing much-needed money for housing, education, social care, and other public services across the country. London’s wealth creation is vital to the UK’s prosperity.

But ministers and their officials give every impression that their feelings towards the capital are lukewarm, at best.

In recent years we have seen the explicitly anti-London policies associated with ‘levelling up’, leaving London excluded from various funding streams and opportunities.

Although ‘levelling up’ is no more, the current government still seems to prefer highlighting investment it makes outside the capital, and reluctant to acknowledge both London’s needs and crucial contribution to the UK.

London’s devolution settlement is 25 years old and in need of modernising. Compared to other major cities around the world such as Paris and New York, London’s devolved powers are fairly pitiful. Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have more advanced devolution arrangements than the capital. Why has London been left behind?

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 5 Comments

The first freedom: Autonomy of the Body

By Esther Foulsham | Wed 17th September 2025 - 10:25 am

The First Freedom: Autonomy of the Body

If you cannot respect another person’s right to do with their body as they please, liberalism has no place for you.

Most people who consider themselves liberals will consider a (usually unspoken) list of rights they hold sacred.  Freedom of speech is usually the first to come to mind.  But what about the others?  The right to a fair trial?  The right to privacy?  The right to own property?

While often rarely cited, we passionately believe bodily autonomy is the right that is foundational to all others, thus we, as liberals, have a duty to defend it.  Although we must defend a wide plethora of human rights, including a core commitment to freedom of expression, we must, however, be clear: free speech should never be used as a justification to undermine other fundamental liberal values.  This includes, above all else, our right to bodily autonomy and the freedom to define our own identities.  But rights don’t exist in isolation; they are always tested in the tension between individual freedom and state control.

To understand the liberal commitment to bodily autonomy, we can contrast it with a more conservative principle: paternalism.  Paternalists claim that the State should determine what people can and cannot do with their bodies.  This is most glaring in the United States, where attacks on abortion rights are justified under the guise of ‘protecting the rights of the unborn’, and gender-affirming care for minors is (being increasingly restricted) in state legislatures across the country, reflecting an increasing desire of the State to exert control and insist that kids and their parents do not know best.

In the UK, paternalism takes subtler forms—often cloaked in the rhetoric of so-called “gender critical” activism, found across all political parties, including our own.  It also manifests in outdated legal structures: for example, many are unaware that under current UK law, even with the decriminalisation of abortion, a pregnant woman must still obtain the approval of two doctors in order to access a safe and sanitary abortion.   This is control wearing a convenient freedom-shaped disguise.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 4 Comments
Matt McLaren

Reclaiming our flags

By Matt McLaren | Tue 16th September 2025 - 7:30 pm

I am a patriot of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and a proud Englishman.

Nevertheless, in one way or another, for pretty much my entire life I have been seeking – mostly through electoral politics – to improve our shared country, as well as the wider world.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Colin Bloodworth

The elephant not in the room at conference

By Colin Bloodworth | Tue 16th September 2025 - 5:28 pm

The Lib Dems have the talent, knowledge, and electoral experience to win even bigger at the next General Election (GE) – even to help govern the country – thanks once again to the incompetence of another incumbent party in power.

What could prevent us from succeeding? In a nutshell, the Reform party, whose leader is using Donald Trump’s copybook to whip up emotions. Of course, the next GE should be a long way away and Farage’s popularity

…

Continue reading »
Tagged | 17 Comments
Steve Wotton

What is the Lib Dem vision for growth?

By Steve Wotton | Tue 16th September 2025 - 9:04 am

Before writing this article I searched Lib Dem Voice for articles on the economy, economic growth and the hot topic of “abundance”. I was surprised how little the economy seems to be discussed or written about, at least as the main topic of an article. This contrasts with the uncomfortable reality that the UK is in a terrible economic position.

UK real wage growth has been flat for getting on for nearly 2 decades. This is not news to anyone. It has had plenty of focus in the media, and from economic think tanks on the right and left. This is a direct reflection of stagnating real GDP per capita and, in turn, means that tax revenues are not growing at a rate able to keep up with the demands of our aging population. Hence Rachel Reeves finds herself in a horrific fiscal position.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 22 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: Free speech… and its limits!

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 15th September 2025 - 4:30 pm

On Saturday I was live on the ‘Debate Desk’ segment on Peter Cardwell’s programme on Talk. One of the issues we discussed was free speech and what its limits should be, indeed if it should have limits.

I’m not a free speech absolutist. Whilst being able to express ourselves freely and enjoy robust debate (as I do on the national broadcast airwaves most weeks) we all, and quite rightly, have limits on our speech. There are laws, for one thing, and beyond that there are cultural norms which, you hope, most people abide by not because they have to but because they want to. Because they respect minority groups, for example, and would never want to do anything to cause offence.

Sadly, however, it would seem that a sizeable minority are happy to not only cause offence but say things quite openly which are likely actionable by law. For example I saw a video on social media from the truly dreadful ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally in London at the weekend in which one ‘protester’ said, quite freely, openly, and apparently proudly, that Prime Minister Keir Starmer should be ‘assassinated.’

Words cannot express how truly vile that is, especially coming at the end of a week in which we saw a political assassination in the brutal killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk when he was debating students on a university campus in America. A wife denied her husband, two young children denied their father.

However much you may disagree with someone (and some of what Kirk advocated was beyond awful) the answer is to take him on in debate not to engage in political violence which is always, always, unacceptable. We, as Liberals, must guard the ability to express yourself robustly but also defend the all important guardrails of speech and cultural niceties.

I despair the views of an increasingly sizeable fringe but I cling on to the hope (perhaps naively) that most people are good, decent, and liberal.

Are Reform UK just New Tories?

As I write these words on Monday lunchtime leading the radio news headlines is the defection to Reform UK of Tory Shadow Minister Danny Kruger. In his speech, sat alongside Nigel Farage grinning like a Cheshire Cat, Kruger says the Conservative Party ‘is over.’

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 13 Comments
Lord William Wallace

William Wallace writes: The leader of the illiberal world is visiting Britain

By Lord William Wallace | Mon 15th September 2025 - 11:55 am

Trump’s state visit will throw a harsh light on the links between the American and British right.  Proponents of Brexit sought to protect our sovereignty against continental Europeans, but have always been ready to follow the United States.  Daniel Hannan’s book, ‘How We Invented Freedom and Why it Matters’ (2013) proclaimed the supremacy of the English-speaking peoples and the inferiority of others. Nigel Farage is almost as often in Washington as in Westminster. Those around Trump see Britain as a country that ought to be like their America, and that they plan to recapture for their version of freedom.

Much of the right-wing press and its comment contributors are far more familiar with Washington think tanks and American conferences than with political currents in any part of Europe. Climate change denialism, opposition to diversity programmes, dismissal of liberalism in all its aspects, blind faith in lower taxes and fewer public services, all flow across the Atlantic from West to East.  Finance also flows, into the right-wing think-tanks of Tufton Street and other anti-liberal bodies.  Charlie Kirk (sadly now shot in Utah) founded Turning Point UK in 2018 to extend his well-funded campaign to recapture American universities from the ‘liberal elite’ to British campuses.  British politicians and conservative intellectuals are invited to National Conservative conferences; American anti-abortionists train British activists.    Paul Marshall’s ‘Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’ brings together likeminded anti-liberals from across the English-speaking world, with prominent Republicans and hard-right Americans among its speakers.  J. D. Vance’s visit to the Cotswolds this summer, where he met with several of Britain’s leading right-wing figures, showed that the American new right see Britain as part of their natural territory.

An extraordinary Op-ed in the Times on September 8th, by a British journalist – Dominic Green – who writes for the Spectator as well as the Wall Street Journal, set out the US Right’s approach to their ‘special relationship’ with Britain.  ‘The frontier of the American empire is hardening as an economic, military and digital frontier.  America expects Britain to do its duty and remain inside it.’   He reports ‘the view, now unanimous on the American right, that Britain is an accelerated case study in the willed decline of the West. … ‘The Americans cannot afford to lose Britain.  That means they must pressure Britain into line, not just with Trump’s open disapproval at a press conference but by withholding intelligence or slow-walking economic preference.’

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 6 Comments
Rob Blackie

How to fight the far right

By Rob Blackie | Mon 15th September 2025 - 8:58 am

The last few weeks have been a worrying time. Friends of mine have told me that, because they aren’t white, they are worried about visiting parts of our country. Robert Jenrick and other politicians have implied you are only properly British if you are white. Last weekend we saw shocking violence on London’s streets from far right racist thugs. It’s like an horrific throwback to the 80s – a ‘This is England’ nightmare.

Most worryingly, our Prime Minister failed to condemn these threats.

In this climate we Liberal Democrats must call out racism, and say, at …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 21 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Caron’s catch-up – a worrying week

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 14th September 2025 - 7:27 pm

There has been much this week to worry us. Israel continues to shock and horrify, not just in Gaza, worrying escalations of the Ukraine conflict in Ukraine itself and Poland make that whole situation more dangerous and yet more political murder in the US.

Yet we’re all talking about Peter Mandelson and whether the beleaguered Prime Minister can survive. If you’re not a political nerd, it all sounds as chaotic as, say, a Boris Johnson administration.

Obviously Mandelson should never have had that job in the first place and only found himself in the running because the Government thinks sucking up to Donald Trump is the  only way to limit the damage he inflicts, particularly in terms of trade. It should concentrate on building ties with European neighbours stop debasing itself and quietly stand firm against his excesses.  I doubt that rolling out the red carpet for someone as erratic as Trump will help us beyond the end of his State visit.

If he had left the previous ambassador in post, Keir Starmer would most likely not have so many  people in his own party questioning his position to the press.  Next year’s local elections are now being openly spoken about as a deadline for improvement.

He also now has a Deputy Leader election to worry about. Bridget Phillipson and Lucy Powell are unlikely to give us the drama of the 1981 Benn/Healey contest but it will give those in the party who are dissatisfied with him to send him a message.

I hope that as a party we are properly thinking about where we might realistically make gains from Labour in those critical local and national elections in May. We need to make sure we have both our feet on the ground when assessing these things but we will be in a position for the first time in 15 years to challenge them in some places and we need to take full advantage of it.

Charlie Kirk

Every right minded person will have been  horrified by Kirk’s murder this week and all our hearts go out to his wife and tiny children. Yes his views were terrible, yes he stoked fear and division but nobody deserves to die for expressing their views.

Yet the President does not condemn all such incidents equally. Where is the posthumous Medal of Freedom for murdered Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman? Flags were not flown at half mast when she and her husband were killed in June.

If any MP from any party had had a family member attacked in this country, I can’t imagine Keir Starmer being anything other than sympathetic and supportive. In the US, Donald Trump mocked Nancy Pelosi months after her husband Paul was brutally attacked in their own home.

What was needed was a call for calm, for respect, for people to express their differences robustly and peacefully. For the country’s leader to behave like a grown-up. No such luck. Trump tried to pin the blame on the left and stoked rather than tried to end the division.

It’s what he does and what he will continue to do while he uses the tools of the state to repress and intimidate.

All political activists will feel a bit more anxious now that political violence or the threat of it seems to be on the rise, particularly on the US but if those of us who want a fair, free and open society stop doing what we are doing, everything gets worse.

100,000 racists in London

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 2 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 14th September 2025 - 10:41 am

United States

A prerequisite of a successful foreign policy is a stable domestic base.

And in today’s interconnected world, a successful foreign policy has a positive impact on home affairs.

At the moment Donald Trump is in big trouble on the home front. This in turn is having an impact on America’s ability to influence world affairs.

To start with there is the Epstein Files—the paedophile sex scandal which refuses to go away.

But even more troubling is this week’s economic news. The Bureau of Labour Statistics reported that new job creations were a mere 22,000 in August—a third less than anticipated. On top of that, …

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 5 Comments
Vince Cable

Vince Cable writes: Boycotting Trump

By Vince Cable | Sun 14th September 2025 - 8:50 am

Whoever advises Ed Davey gets full marks for suggesting the boycott of next week’s  Trump banquet at the Palace. And congratulations to Ed for taking up the right issue in the right way at the right time. 

A boycott  signals clearly that Lib Dems reject the Labour government’s obsequious, subservient cultivation of Trump. And to focus on Trump’s active complicity in the horrors of Gaza touches the moral core of British public opinion. 

I set something of a precedent by boycotting the state dinner for the King of Saudi Arabia when I was Acting Leader. There was some tut-tutting from party grandees as well as the anti-Lib Dem press (ie. most of it). I was accused of disrespecting the Royal Family. 

But we should argue that the use of royalty to massage the vanity of appalling guests – from Mobutu and Ceausescu to Trump – is, itself, disrespectful to the head of state. I never experienced any subsequent rebuke from the Palace for my boycott and I very much doubt if Ed’s dealings with the King will be affected.

The focus on Gaza is timely and correct. But there is a wider issue: the way in which the government has turned the UK into a supplicant, vassal state of Trump’s America. The implications go beyond the indignity of bowing and scraping to Trump. Of course, the USA has been our close ally since wartime and is the centrepiece of NATO. Continued US support is currently needed to help support Ukraine in its existential struggle. But clinging to hope and sentiment isn’t a strategy.

 The Trump presidency should surely be wake-up call to Britain and other European countries. If the ‘Special Relationship’ amounts to no more than the American President’s susceptibility to flattery, a love of royal photo-opportunities and a liking for Scottish links golf courses, it is worthless. It could evaporate as quickly as Peter Mandelson’s role as Trump ‘whisperer’ and courtier-in-chief. Any defence guarantee to Ukraine or the rest of Europe is unreliable and is discounted in the Kremlin accordingly. Trade agreements are even more precarious.

The choice facing the UK and other Western allies is stark. One is to ‘hang in there’ in the hope that Trump will continue to smile in our direction, will mellow and be succeeded by someone less capricious, avaricious and opportunist. That appears to be UK government policy. Sadly, there is little sign of mellowing or of a more tractable successor. The recent humiliation meted out to the Japanese in their negotiation over trade is a warning that even the most craven of supplicants will be trodden underfoot if it suits Trump’s mood.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , , , and | 12 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Charlie Kirk

By Tom Arms | Sat 13th September 2025 - 9:38 am

The murder of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy. The reaction is a frightening potential disaster.

On a personal level, the violent death of a 31-year-old father of two is heart breaking.

On the political plane it is a calamity. As of this writing we do not know the motive for the shooting. It is, however, most likely that Charlie Kirk was murdered for his far-right political views.

The right of free and open debate is a fundamental principle of democracy. It is one of the key reasons that democracies have prospered and totalitarian states have failed.

That is why most of America’s political figures have been loud in their condemnation of Charlie Kirk’s death, including President Donald Trump who started off on the right note in attacking the murder and the rhetoric which led to that murder.

But Trump being Trump, he couldn’t help himself from sliding into the self-same finger-pointing accusations of the type that he himself said led to Kirk’s death.

After praising Charlie as a “great American” who “loved his country” Trump went on to say: “All Americans, and the media, must confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonising those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most despicable way possible.

“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we are seeing in our country today.”

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Mary Reid

Discrepancies in access to adapted vehicles leaves some people housebound

By Mary Reid | Fri 12th September 2025 - 12:17 pm

Yesterday Adrian Ashton raised some questions about Carer’s Allowance.

Today I want to focus on another anomaly that affects people with disabilities and their carers, relating to access to adapted vehicles.

People of working age can apply for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). We know that the eligibility criteria for PIP is controversially under scrutiny by the Government at the moment but that is not my issue in this post. PIP is not means tested, is tax free and is meant to cover the additional expenses that a person may have because of their disability. The PIP Daily Living Allowance is paid at one of two levels depending on the needs of the applicants. The lower level is £73.90 pw and the higher level is £110.40 pw.

When someone on PIP reaches retirement age they continue to receive PIP. However if someone becomes disabled for the first time after reaching retirement age they are instead paid Attendance Allowance. Now Attendance Allowance is also not means tested, is tax free and is paid at the same rates as the PIP Daily Living Allowance.

So what’s the problem? Well it is crucially something that I have not yet mentioned. People receiving PIP get a further top-up known as the Mobility Allowance. This is paid at £29.90 at the lower level and £77.05 at the higher level, and the higher level opens access to the Motability scheme. Under the Motability scheme the higher Mobility Allowance can be used to lease a customised vehicle.

The key thing to note is that people on Attendance Allowance do not receive the Mobility Allowance so cannot access the Motability Scheme.

For example, consider two people who each suffered major injuries in a car accident which left them using a wheelchair with considerable care needs. The first was 64 at the time and was eligible for higher level PIP and could lease a wheelchair accessible vehicle through Motability at no extra cost to themselves. They can continue with PIP and Motability into old age. The second was 68 at the time of the accident and became eligible for Attendance Allowance, but did not get a vehicle and did not get an allowance towards one.

This anomaly affects fulltime carers as well as people with disabilities. If the cared-for person falls into the second category and cannot be left alone then the carer is also stuck at home without a suitable vehicle.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Adrian Ashton

How a simple oversight in legislation is costing the economy over £10bn a year, crippling businesses, and forcing nearly 1m unpaid carers into poverty

By Adrian Ashton | Thu 11th September 2025 - 8:00 pm

At least 1 in 10 of all people in the UK are unpaid carers – but over 10% of these (a growing trend, and estimated to be in the region of 1 million people by 2027) can never be fully recognised, or supported as such. This is because when unpaid carer legislation was passed, it was never assumed that an unpaid carer would separately also be self-employed or a small business owner.

Because of this oversight, none of the carer or business support services recognise they exist, and so don’t design or offer the specific types of assistance they need in comparison to other unpaid carers. As a result, this growing number of unpaid carers are twice as likely to be in poverty than any other type of carer who’s trying/needing to also remain ‘economically active’ – and their respective businesses’ productivity is at least 20% less than it would otherwise be (because the struggle to balance running a business with caring responsibilities means stalled growth, prevents the creation of new jobs, delays growth and investment plans, etc).

And unpaid care is an issue that’s increasingly affecting all businesses throughout all sectors – 600 people a day are having to leave paid employment because their unpaid caring roles are becoming unreconcilable with the needs of their employer (even after the introduction of the Carers Leave Act). This means businesses are losing the talent and skills that they rely on, and so creating knock-on effects on wider productivity, growth, other jobs, etc in these businesses who aren’t otherwise directly owned or led by unpaid carers.

Now combine all of this with the fact that less than 10% of all unpaid carers are eligible to apply for Carer’s Allowance because of its current design: people who needed to previously be employed to pay bills, buy food, etc now can’t work and can’t otherwise seek financial support via this scheme that’s seen as the solution by many to this need. This means over 500 people every day will be being forced into self-employment to try and resolve this tension and crisis in their lives: which will force them into further hidden obscurity because unpaid carers legislation won’t then recognise them as it currently does (being salaried is one of the statuses that current legislation and policy recognises an unpaid carer as being able to also be).

Continue reading »
Tagged | Leave a comment
Jonathan Brown

Time to drop the pretence – Israel is no partner for peace

By Jonathan Brown | Thu 11th September 2025 - 11:56 am

The BBC ever so carefully described Israel’s bombing of (UK and US ally) Qatar on 9th September as simply a “strike on senior Hamas leaders” who just happened to be situated in Doha. They report that the government of Israel states for the record that “Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility”.

Two Qatari nationals were killed in the bombing in addition to members of Hamas. As Calum Miller, our Foreign Affairs spokesperson, rightly said in Parliament: “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s willingness to strike Doha will undermine efforts to secure the release of the hostages still held in Hamas’ captivity.”

Israel’s attack cannot be justified on the grounds that a legitimate military target long in hiding had just resurfaced. Qatar has hosted Hamas’ political leadership since 2012 – with the implicit blessing of both Israel and the US. No reasonable person can draw a conclusion other than that this was an attempt to derail peace talks: “it’s thought likely the targeted Hamas leaders were in the middle of discussing their formal response to the US ideas (about how to reach a Gaza ceasefire agreement)”.

Hamas has committed and defends the committing of war crimes. Its constitution continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas’ fighters and military leadership are legitimate targets in war, but the alternative to some kind of peace deal – the complete elimination of the organisation – cannot be achieved without the genocide of the Palestinian people. Hamas’ awfulness is in this case irrelevant: you only attempt to assassinate the people you are negotiating with if you have no intention of reaching an agreement.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 21 Comments
Larry Ngan

How the Labour Government’s “soft” approach to challenging regimes allowed transnational repression from the Chinese government

By Larry Ngan | Wed 10th September 2025 - 3:54 pm

How had the Rules-based International Order (‘RBIO’) influenced UK-China affairs on Hong Kong? A good example would The Handover. Britain transferred sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) under the Sino-British declaration 1984 which promised a high autonomy to Hong Kongers with ever progressive democracy in Hong Kong. The transfer of sovereignty occurred as promised regardless of the human rights turmoil between the signing of the treaty and the TianAnMen massacre. 

Yet, do challenging regimes like China followed international treaties to the letter? No. First, China under the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP’) imposed Chinese laws into Hong Kong and threw out the promise of high autonomy. Then, the CCP imposed its will through transnational repression in total contempt of UK law.

Even the Conservatives recognised China’s flagrant breach of the Joint Declaration and dusted out rescue plans for Hong Kongers – the BN(O) visa scheme. Yet, PM Starmer’s Government seems to be soft on the challenging regime in China. And in the case of the Chinese Embassy Complex development plan, they tried turning a blind eye. A firm China strategy is urgently needed if we are to halt China’s movement in destroying the RBIO.

Transnational repression of the Chinese Government

Chinese authorities are sending secret police to the UK carrying out acts of harassment and intimidation over pro-democracy campaigners. The 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee’s (‘ISC’) report on China highlighted that the remits of China’s Intelligence Services (‘ChiS’) are far larger in the UK. More worryingly, CHiS practices, including kidnappings, have far greater remits compared with the intelligence operations of many other countries. Moreover, the reports of China’s action against our parliamentary democracy and secret Chinese police operations are mentioned by the ISC investigation.

The role of the CHiS is our fundamental opposition to a new mega Chinese Embassy at the Old Royal Mint. 

Former Minister of State for Security Tom Tugendhat once criticised the Chinese government on 6th June 2023 as follows:

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 2 Comments
Abrial Jerram

Is having “good policy” important?

By Abrial Jerram | Wed 10th September 2025 - 7:55 am

Before anything else, I want to make clear what I mean by “good policy.” I specifically am not defining it as policy I agree with, I mean policy that is specific enough to be implementable without a significant amount of further policy development, lacks vagary and stands up to basic intellectual scrutiny. Plenty of policy which I am opposed to passes that test.

So does our party’s policy meet this standard of good policy? As a test case, let’s look at the agenda for our upcoming conference and it’s first policy motion, F5: Backing Youth Work to Build Communities. It begins by setting out quite clearly setting out both the value of youth work, both as a social good and in economic terms and the inadequacy of current provision and reaffirms that we believe that youth work is a good thing.

However, when it reaches the section Conference therefore calls on the government to: the section where specific steps for the government to take are proposed, it quickly loses it’s clarity. Calls are made for “fair, long term funding settlement” with no detail as to what that might be, a strategy for “high quality, targeted and open access youth work” and another “comprehensive Workforce and training strategy” to ensure a “sustainable pipeline of youth practitioners.” No details are available on what either strategy might entail or how it may be implemented. Worst of all is a call for a statutory duty for local authorities to provide sufficient youth services, while refusing to define what “sufficient” means. All in all, it sounds less like the policy of a party that has loads and loads of good policy if only the media would just look, and more like one which generally likes good things. In my opinion, this isn’t “good policy.”

Now you might be thinking, policy motions aren’t meant to be precise, it’s policy papers and the manifesto, where policy papers and motions passed over the last few years are gathered in an overarching plan which has to be precise and “good policy.” I’ve had many people say that to me.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 12 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Might we have a definition of government debt? Might we have a definition of democracy?...
  • David Raw
    @ Tristan Ward. Given your views on carers, I would strongly advise you to remain healthy and not to grow old....
  • Katrin Harding
    Thanks for grasping this issue! On the consultation sessions- I’d love to join one but the timings are impossible as a parent of young children. I’m happy t...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Kira, The words you quoted were from Peter Davies'. Not me. I wouldn't agree with raising VAT on energy to 15% right now. I'd leave it as is. The point ...
  • Peter Martin
    “‘why can’t social care and NHS spending be treated as ‘investment’’. Of course, that wont wash”. I'd agree if were talking about re...