Category Archives: Op-eds

Tom Arms

Observations of an Ex Pat – The Vote

By Tom Arms | Sat 9th August 2025 - 8:30 am

The right to vote is at the very heart of every democratic government. Running alongside that is the right to make that vote count; to provide at least the hope that people can change their political representation through the ballot box.

Without that hope the voters will lose faith in their political system and – ultimately—the government loses credibility and democratic values and the country as a whole faces serious decline.

Gerrymandering is a political tool that denies representation to certain sections of the electorate. It has been a part of the American political scene almost since the country’s foundation. It is practiced by both political parties. Neither of those facts make it anything less than what it is—political corruption.

Politicians have been devising methods of manipulating the vote almost since the votes were cast. The Romans devised a system whereby votes were weighted in accordance with the voter’s wealth. In the nominally republican city states of Renaissance Italy, citizens seeking public office were pre-vetted by the wealthy oligarchs before the people voted on them.

Then, of course, there were the pocket—or “rotten”—boroughs of Britain where centuries-old constituency boundaries meant that a handful of voters could elect one MP while a bustling city of tens of thousands went unrepresented.

The drawing of constituency—or electoral—boundaries was at the heart of Britain’s rotten boroughs. And the way in which those boundaries are drawn which became the biggest political bone of contention. Up until 1885 they continued to be organised in such a way to give more MPs to rural areas.

After the 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act, urban areas were given more seats but political parties were given a bigger say in boundary redistribution. The two biggest parties—the Liberals and Conservatives—ensured their hold on power by splitting up working class areas to dilute support for the nascent Labour Party. They gerrymandered.

It was not until 1948-50 that Britain established an independent boundary commission that took constituency boundaries out of party political control. Gradually over the post-war years, other countries followed suit. In 2025, the United States is the only major outlier, standing alongside countries such as Zimbabwe.

The United States is a federal system and each state determines the electoral boundaries for every elected office from congressman to dog catcher. In a handful of states – Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan and Washington—an independent electoral commission draws the lines. New York also has a nominally independent commission, but the state legislature has reserved the right to override its decisions. In all the other 44 states the electoral boundaries are drawn by politicians in the state legislatures. In the US, drawing electoral boundaries is called “redistricting.”

The result has been truly astonishing efforts at gerrymandering. In Louisiana, for instance, a third of the population is African-American but only one of the state’s six congressmen is Black.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 5 Comments
Jack Meredith

Labour, Marxism and the Lib Dems: my journey through Britain’s left-wing

By Jack Meredith | Fri 8th August 2025 - 6:25 pm

My initial experience with politics was the first time I was able to vote, back in the 2015 General Election. I had just turned 18 and had grown up in a Labour-supporting household. So, instinctively, I voted for Ed Miliband.

I hadn’t understood what politics was all about, but I’ve a distinct memory of watching Gordon Brown on TV and thinking “he seems a nice man”. Looking back, my mum played a large part in my fondness. She was panicking, following the 2008 financial crash, over whether we could continue mortgage payments (she had recently become redundant, leaving my dad as the sole wage earner). The payment freeze Brown implemented prevented us from losing our home. I recall the Tory attacks, introducing the idea of austerity, and my mum describing them as “completely heartless”. She would be right.

Fast forward to 2015, and that wave of admiration I had for Brown carried over to Miliband. I had no idea what he stood for, but I knew he was Labour, like Brown, and that made him right in my eyes. The rest of the country didn’t feel the same, as Cameron’s Conservatives decisively defeated him.

Then came Corbyn, a man I knew nothing about before his leadership. I remembered watching his victory on TV, asking my mum, “Who’s that old man?” She didn’t know either, saying, “he must be some fringe backbencher.” Again, I voted for Labour, but this time from a “well, they’re not the Tories” sentiment. Still left-wing, I never quite felt at home under Corbyn, as I found him to be further left than I was comfortable with. Nonetheless, I gave him a chance.

His performance in the 2017 General Election filled me with hope that we might see a left-wing government after years of Tory misrule. By the end of 2019, however, any hope that Labour or the left at large would return to government had ended.

A few months later, COVID hit. With all the free time I now had, I decided to explore political theory beyond the Labour-Tory binary. I began with autobiographies; my first, and to this day, my favourite, was Denis Healey’s “Time Of My Life”.

It was around this time that I also discovered TikTok and, more importantly, the far-left political community on the platform. I had heard of communism before, but had never really paid much attention to it. Yet here I was, watching video after video of engaging creators breaking down political theory into digestible thirty-second snippets.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 13 Comments
Joe Harris

Does the party care about its councillors?

By Joe Harris | Fri 8th August 2025 - 3:47 pm

I and 46 Council Leaders and Deputy Leaders have just written (see text of letter below) to Federal Conference Committee Char, Nick Da Costa and Party President, Mark Pack to raise our concerns about the lack of a main speaking slot for a local government representative at this year’s Federal Conference.

Local government is the only part of the party currently in power and we felt it was essential to speak up on behalf of the more than 3,200 Liberal Democrat councillors across the UK who are delivering for their communities every single day.

Between us, our councils are responsible for more than £17 billion of public spending. From social care to housing, from climate action to local transport we are leading and implementing Liberal Democrat values where they matter most: in people’s day-to-day lives.

We now have 76 Liberal Democrat council leaders across the UK; that’s more than the number of Liberal Democrat MPs. And yet, this year’s conference agenda does not include a prominent platform slot for any of them. That is deeply disappointing.

We’re proud of our 72 MPs and rightly so. But we cannot forget that when the party was reduced to just 8 MPs in 2015, it was local councillors who kept the Liberal Democrats alive. We delivered services, campaigned hard and we’re the foundation of rebuilding our party from the ground up.

The fact that 35 of our current MPs have a background in local government is no coincidence.

Local government also played a vital role in last year’s General Election. Not just on the doorstep, but financially through the tithing scheme (something which seems to be optional for our Members of Parliament!). Our councillors raised over £3 million to support local and national campaigns. That funding made a real difference, and the party’s financial position would be far weaker without it.

We’ve seen the responses on social media including Nick Da Costa’s comments about some local government presence in the auditorium. While we appreciate that the brilliant Millie Earl will open conference alongside Vikki Slade MP and that there will be a session on taking on Reform involving a council leader, these moments do not carry the weight or visibility of a proper keynote speech.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 21 Comments
Alastair Bowman

Free markets work; free trade only benefits tyrants

By Alastair Bowman | Fri 8th August 2025 - 12:08 pm

Free markets liberated us from the overweening power of church and aristocracy and created a rights culture.  Emile Durkheim established back in 1893 the constitutional, commercial and civil law required to govern the society of strangers that capitalism creates.  Free markets empower people with a choice of where to buy, work and live, and vendors compete with lower prices right down the supply chain.  Free trade operates above our heads, regulating governments and giving capital the right to own, operate and profit, in markets that may be scarred by monopoly, corruption, slavery and child labour.  Free markets are democratising; free trade can entrench power, concentrate wealth, limit the scope of civil society, and undermine prospects for economic and political development.  With free trade, we are exporting the economics of capitalism while keeping the rights culture for ourselves.

When an African landowner chooses to export, the farm worker still has a job but the product of the local land, water and labour is shipped out of the country for the benefit of someone else.  With less food grown for local consumption, everyone faces higher prices.  In recompense, the landowner receives more profit.

Unless there is a labour shortage, there is no reason to expect higher profits to fund higher wages.  More likely, any hard currency is placed in foreign bank accounts, or spent on imported luxuries, or imported machinery to replace the labourers altogether.  Worst of all, the money could be used to buy guns.  Then people lose twice over from free trade, seeing the product of the local land, water and labour exported and the tools of their repression bought with the proceeds.

Free trade makes our imports cheaper but at the cost of our long-term security.  Moreover, it gives despots a competitive advantage because people without rights are cheaper to employ and easier to exploit.  Putting high tariffs on countries that restrict or abuse basic rights would help rich and poor democracies by cutting unfair competition.

Struggling democracies would be the first to benefit, but the captive populations could be the real winners.  Longer term, tariffs on tyrants would incentivise democracy and human rights instead of entrenching despotic wealth and power.  Near term, captive populations benefit from any switch to domestic demand needed to stem unemployment, which despots fear as destabilising and unprofitable.  If selling to the free is much harder, they will have to sell to the un-free, making them better off, consuming their own output with less profit for their abusers.  We, in turn, should use our considerable purchasing power to support democracy and human rights, instead of buying imports on the cheap by exploiting people who lack basic freedoms.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 32 Comments
Prem Raghvani

It’s Sunday, 4 July 2027, three years since Labour’s historic landslide victory.

By Prem Raghvani | Fri 8th August 2025 - 9:40 am

Want to check how many seats they won before half the backbench got booted for defending something dangerous like, I don’t know, free school meals? Let’s pull up the Wikipedia article.

Oh, hang on… we’ll need to verify our ID first.

Can’t have children accidentally learning about something subversive like austerity. Not after Wikipedia was designated a “Category 1” site under the Online Safety Act.

They fought it, of course – took the government to court back in 2025. But after a year of legal ping-pong and mounting fees, they gave in.

Now you just need a passport, facial scan, your National Insurance number, and town of birth to access an article about the 2024 General Election. All in the name of protecting the children.

Anyway, silly me, I just remembered it’s Sunday. Time to visit my parents, as I do every week.

I figured I’d take the newly renationalised railway. It’s more environmentally friendly, and the pride of the country. Trains were invented here, after all. Thank you, George Stephenson. Silly me.

Oh wait. Half of Northern’s timetable has been scrapped again today for “essential maintenance”, including the train I had a ticket for.

The one that did show up just sort of gave up outside Rochdale. You can’t really blame it, it’s over 30 years old. No apology, just a poor railway worker left to deal with the backlash, quietly pointing us to the Delay Repay website.

Which I tried to use. After all, I paid £275 for my super-duper-extra-amazing off-peak train ticket that got me… precisely nowhere.

But naturally, the Delay Repay, and the complaints form is now behind an age verification wall too.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Will Lawson

The Liberal Democrats need a more radical platform

By Will Lawson | Thu 7th August 2025 - 11:55 am

Last Summer, the mood at party conference was jubilant. Record election success brought us 72 Members of Parliament and offered us a vast opportunity to shape national debate and grow our party further. 

Yet, in the year since the election, it is the rise of Reform UK which has dominated the political agenda – despite us outnumbering them in Parliament by a factor of 14. Meanwhile, our vote share has sat stagnant at the same level since 2019, even whilst the combined Tory-Labour vote share has declined from 75% to 55%. As dissatisfaction with the status quo escalates, our electoral platform has clearly lacked a sufficiently bold vision to represent a serious political alternative.

To grow our party further, our policy platform needs to achieve three objectives. First, it must speak to the whole electorate, focussing on national priorities rather than those of voters in a small number of seats. Second, our party should embrace the radicalism needed to earn us the attention of the media and match the scale of public dissatisfaction with the status quo. Third, we must remain true to our distinct identity: blending human freedom with social justice, internationalism with localism, liberalism with social democracy.

A new platform

In his 2019 campaign for the Tory leadership, Rory Stewart declared that “the centre ground must not be simply the midpoint of the stick, whose only merit is being as far away as possible from each extreme”. Instead, the centre can succeed by “harnessing the tension of two opposing forces”: mixing policies from both sides of the political spectrum. This is the path the Liberal Democrats must adopt, embracing a new radicalism which transcends the established political divide.

Take the issue of rising child poverty – the most morally unacceptable consequence of inequality – where Labour’s conspicuous inaction over the two-child benefit cap has left a political opening. Our party has committed to repealing the two-child limit, but why not go further to outflank Labour on the left? There are 14 million children in the UK: we could consolidate existing child benefits into a single, universal, far higher benefit of £100 per week – for an additional £40bn. That is roughly 10% of our current welfare spend and could be funded, for example, by reducing the number of VAT exemptions to the OECD average. This policy is not only socially just but economically liberal, since removing VAT exemptions promotes economic efficiency, whilst universal cash benefits are fairly non-distortionary and avoid ‘perverse incentives’.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 20 Comments
Zagham Farhan

Labour’s grubby authoritarianism is on full display

By Zagham Farhan | Thu 7th August 2025 - 8:55 am

Welcome to Britain, where you already have to scan your face to access much of the internet, facial recognition is rolled out on our streets, and soon your digital ID will be essential to access literally any public service. This great nation, once the flag-bearer of liberal ideals and rights, is sleepwalking into a digital dictatorship. 

One of the features of the Coalition Government that I am proudest of is that we repealed New Labour’s ID card legislation. Now, with fancy new branding and a cover that it is to help tackle problems with illegal migration, Labour appears to be back to its roots, and planning to roll out digital ID in this Parliament. 

This appears to be inspired by a paper from the Starmer loyalist think tank Labour Together. I took the time to read this paper, and its contents are even more terrifying than the headlines suggest. In sum, the proposal is to introduce ‘BritCard’, dubbed as a ‘mandatory national digital identity’. The paper proposes to integrate essentially all of our interactions with the state into one digital location, including healthcare and driving licenses. Even more terrifying is that it explicitly endorses such a card being stored in a private sector system like Apple Wallets. 

Even if I were to park the principled objection for a second, the Government will mess this up. I’ve worked in the NHS for years, and I can’t believe that our diabolical computer systems have not yet collapsed entirely. Look at Government’s myriad failures – from track and trace to the Afghan data leak – and I don’t think anyone could tell me with honest certainty that they don’t think this system will be hacked, will leak or will simply stop working at some point. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 19 Comments
Hina Bokhari

The last thing Sadiq Khan wants in City Hall is a Disability Champion

By Hina Bokhari | Wed 6th August 2025 - 11:55 am

Sadiq Khan has said no – again.

For the third time, the Mayor of London has refused Liberal Democrat calls to appoint a dedicated Disability Champion: someone with lived experience and the authority to represent Disabled Londoners at the highest levels of City Hall decision-making.

Mayor Sadiq claims he’s already got it covered – we don’t need a dedicated role. He points to his Deputy Mayor for Communities and Social Justice, whose sprawling brief also includes race, gender, LGBTQ+ communities and faith. He also references a Deaf and Disabled People’s Forum that meets briefly just four times a year. 

Let’s be honest: this isn’t serious engagement. It’s not even remotely close to the kind of structured and systematic co-production that Disabled Londoners deserve. 

And it certainly isn’t delivering results because by any measure you care to mention, the status quo is failing. Whether it’s repeatedly missing even the most minimal targets for accessible housing, the persistent inaccessibility of most tube stations, or the continued rollout of floating bus stops despite their dangers, Disabled Londoners are being let down at every turn.

And the idea that Disabled People are being adequately consulted is laughable. Take the Mayor’s ironically named “Inclusive” Talent Strategy about breaking down the barriers to employment.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 4 Comments
Tim Clement-Jones

A Defence of the Online Safety Act: Protecting children while ensuring effective implementation

By Tim Clement-Jones | Wed 6th August 2025 - 8:55 am

Despite no doubt good intentions,  Liberal Reform’s recent piece on Lib Dem Voice seems to  treat child protection online as an abstract policy preference. The evidence reveals something far more urgent. By age 11, 27% of children have already been exposed to pornography, with the average age of first exposure at just 13. Twitter (X) alone accounts for 41% of children’s pornography exposure, followed by dedicated sites at 37%.

The consequences are profound and measurable. Research shows that 79% of 18-21 year olds have seen content involving sexual violence before turning 18, and young people aged 16-21 are now more likely to assume that girls expect or enjoy physical aggression during sex. Close to half (47%) of all respondents aged 18-21 had experienced a violent sex act, with girls the most impacted.

When we know that children’s accounts on TikTok are shown harmful content every 39 seconds, with suicide content appearing within 2.6 minutes and eating disorder content within 8 minutes, the question is not whether we should act, but how we can act most effectively.

This is not “micromanaging” people’s rights – this is responding to a public health emergency that is reshaping an entire generation’s understanding of relationships, consent, and self-worth.

Liberal Reform’s abstract arguments about civil liberties need to be set against the voices of bereaved families who fought for the Online Safety Act.  The parents of Molly Russell, Frankie Thomas, Olly Stephens, Archie Battersbee, Breck Bednar, and twenty other children who died following exposure to harmful online content did not campaign for theoretical freedoms – they campaigned for their children’s right to life itself.

These families faced years of stonewalling from tech companies who refused to provide basic information about the content their children had viewed before their deaths. The Act now requires platforms to support coroner investigations and provide clear processes for bereaved families to obtain answers. This is not authoritarianism – it is basic accountability

To repeal the Online Safety Act would indeed be a massive own-goal and a win for Elon Musk and the other tech giants who care nothing for our children’s safety. The protections of the Act were too hard won, and are simply too important, to turn our back on.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 22 Comments
Jonathan Brown

Palestine and Israel – language matters

By Jonathan Brown | Tue 5th August 2025 - 9:00 am

In recent months, BBC coverage of Gaza has itself become a major news story. The broadcaster attracted condemnation following the airing of a documentary narrated by the son of a Hamas agriculture minister, and the livestreaming of a Glastonbury performance in which rapper Bob Vylan led chants of “death to the IDF.”  Across mainstream and social media, the BBC was accused of promoting extremism. In an emergency debate in Parliament, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy called for sackings – surely an unacceptable interference in the independence of public broadcasting. The BBC issued public apologies, launched an internal review and pulled the original documentary – as well as, months later, another unrelated documentary on Israel’s systematic attacks on Gaza’s healthcare system (subsequently shown on Channel 4). This all fed the perception that the organisation’s coverage of the conflict is hopelessly biased in favour of the Palestinians.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 24 Comments
Les Tarr

Community Councils – 50 years of being at the heart of our communities

By Les Tarr | Sun 3rd August 2025 - 11:55 am

They have been with us for 50 years, coming into existence in 1975, through the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Their value is becoming more important as local authorities funding is cut, local services are being withdrawn with local community groups picking up the slack.

What are they?

They’re the most local implementation of governance in Scotland, designed to be non-party political and non-sectarian, and inclusive regardless of gender, race, age, disability, nationality or sexual orientation.  

Their effectiveness can be shaped by their geographical nature and fit into three types.

  • Urban Community Councils: In cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh, community councils may represent densely populated neighbourhoods with complex issues. 
  • Rural Community Councils: In remote areas, such as the Highlands and Shires along with smaller coastal areas, their focus will be on issues like broadband access, transportation links and the sustainability of local schools. 
  • Island Community Councils: On islands like Orkney or Shetland, community councils often tackle unique challenges, such as seaboard transport links, access to healthcare, and depopulation. 

Why do we need them?

Their role is to provide:

  • Consultation: Local authorities by law are required to consult with communities on planning and licensing applications, roles where community councils provide that interface. Community councils also have a role in gathering residents’ views on local authority initiatives.
  • Advocacy: Community councils act as advocates, championing improvements and drawing attention to issues ranging from transport and housing to public safety and environmental concerns.
  • Initiation of Projects: Many community councils initiate and manage local projects, organise events, maintaining community spaces, supporting local clubs, and developing community plans.
  • Information Source: They have a role in keeping residents informed about local issues, changes to services, and opportunities for engagement through newsletters, social media, public meetings, and notice boards.
  • Partnerships: Community councils work with local authorities, police, health boards, and voluntary sector organisations to deliver services and enhance community well-being.

In truth not all community councils will fulfil these roles, their level of community activities will be shaped by the community’s profile and demographics

What challenges do community councils face?

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 9 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 3rd August 2025 - 9:18 am

Gaza

“There is no starvation in Gaza. There is no policy of starvation in Gaza,” so spake Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Well, just about everyone disagrees with him, including his good buddy Donald Trump.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) in July alone 63 Gazans died of malnutrition. Obviously many more are suffering from it and still clinging to life. Of those who died 24 were children and 38 adults. The adults were mainly parents who gave what little food they had to their children.

Death from malnutrition is one of the worst possible ways to die. It takes months and is extremely painful.

It usually starts with fatigue. Then the body—in its search for the energy it needs to stay alive—starts to break down muscle tissue from the organs, including the heart and lungs. The skin becomes dry and develops sores. Hair falls out. The victim suffers severe stomach cramps and joint and muscle pain. The victims become highly susceptible to other disease. In the final stages a malnourished person becomes apathetic, confused and then dies.

The worst affected, are children under three. They are more likely to become malnourished simply because they are at an age when their fast-growing bodies need more energy/fuel. They also have limited reserves of fat so they become malnourished more quickly.

Survivors can suffer long-term problems, dependent on how soon they can be treated high calorie foods such as “plumpy nut.” But they have to be treated in special centres over a period of many months or their bodies can suffer other problems.

If their state of starvation is too far advanced, then the children especially will suffer complications for the rest of their lives.

They will almost certainly be below height and weight and the onset of puberty will be delayed. The children will be more susceptible to diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, measles and chronic diseases. They will also have a lower IQ and have difficulty concentrating.  According to the WHO, children who survive severe malnutrition are 12 times more likely to die from a childhood disease.

If they survive to adulthood, they will suffer from depression and anxiety and find it difficult to forge relationships.

One of the main reasons for long-lasting damage is the permanent harm that malnutrition does to the synaptic connections. These are the tiny electrical connections between the body’s cells. Synaptic connections are most commonly referred to when talking about brain functions, but they are also vital in the nervous system and keeping the heart pumping.

Brazil and Canada

Trump’s tariffs are now a political weapon. Actually, they have always been in his political arsenal. He is just being a bit more open about using excise duties for political ends.

The two main targets this week are Canada and Brazil.

The latter involves Trump’s Brazilian friend Jair Bolsonaro. The former Brazilian president was known as the “Latin Trump” and the two men had a lot in common. Not only did their policies overlap, so did the way in which they left office.

Both men claimed that their second runs for the presidency of their respective countries were “stolen” by a “deep state” liberal establishment. Both men also allegedly organised coups to reverse the results of those elections and encouraged their supporters to storm federal buildings to keep them in power.

Trump got away with it. His 2024 election victory brought an abrupt halt to attempts to bring him to trial. Bolsonaro was not so lucky. First he was banned from running for office again until 2030 and then, in February of this year, he was told by Brazil’s Supreme Court that he must stand trial.

Trump’s says the charges against Bolsonaro are “a political witch hunt” and he has slapped a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. He also sanctioned the judge—Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—leading the investigation of Bolsonaro with sanctions and blocked the justice’s access to US investments.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) has responded by telling Trump that if January 6 had occurred in Brazil, he would be in prison.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , , , and | 3 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Project Esther

By Tom Arms | Sat 2nd August 2025 - 10:10 am

The Heritage Foundation is best known as the people who brought us Project 2025. Remember, that was the blueprint for a second Trump Administration which Trump denied he ever heard of and then implemented.

About the same time as Project 2025 was published, The Heritage Foundation produced another blueprint—Project Esther.

The paper is named after the biblical heroine who saved her people in ancient Persia. Its avowed purpose is “A National Strategy to Combat Anti-Semitism.” Its real purpose is to use the veneer of Jewish protection to introduce extraordinary governmental and legal manoeuvres to stifle left-wing dissent.

Like most Trumpian projects, fear is a central element. In the case of Project Esther it is fear of all things Palestinian and anything opposed to the government of Israel. The authors of Project Esther call the object of fear the “Hamas Support Network” (HSN).

In Project Esther’s playbook, HSN encompasses a broad swathe of organisations, student groups, and individual activists. Any far‑left, anticolonial and anti‑Zionist movements is dubbed the moral equivalent of terrorism.  It then goes on to say that because these organisations—that as anyone critical of Israel—are terrorists that they are an organised danger to American society as well as Jewish society.

The next step, according to Project Esther, is to use governmental instruments originally used to combat organised crime to pursue the alleged anti-Semites. The Heritage Foundation proposed using anti-racketeer statues (RICO) and the Foreign Agents Registration Act alongside counter-terrorism laws to prosecute individuals and groups aligned with, or sympathetic to, Palestinian rights.

Universities are key battlegrounds. Project Esther calls for the identification and purging of pro‑Palestinian faculty, pressure on administrations through funding threats, and the surveillance of student protestors. It encourages public firings and invites cutting off visa status or revoking student visas for non‑citizens participating in such activism.

Surveillance and data gathering is a big part of the envisioned infrastructure. Heritage proposes a vertically integrated apparatus linking private security firms, campus police, federal agencies and universities—with techniques including facial recognition, data mining and social media scraping to monitor affinity networks and anticipate dissent before it flourish.

Importantly, the project is rooted in Christian nationalist and evangelical Zionist networks. There is minimal participation from Jewish organisations. In fact, major Jewish groups declined involvement in discussions surrounding Project Esther. They are reportedly uncomfortable with Esther’s selective focus on left-wing anti-Semitism while neglecting the far-right, which they view as the true anti-Semitic threat.

The Heritage Foundation even identifies prominent Jewish figures—such as George Soros and J.B. Pritzker—as anti-Semitic political masterminds behind the pro-Palestinian movement.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 17 Comments
Alastair Bowman

Markets work, but not for poor people

By Alastair Bowman | Fri 1st August 2025 - 12:34 pm

The economic concept of ‘demand’ was developed in the 19th century but merging our wants with our needs has its roots in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation (1776).  He observed that people were highly motivated to improve their own lives, spurring social progress.  Yet the mechanics of supply and demand mean that poor people lose out.

Smith believed that self-interest, combined with specialisation from a more complex division of labour, would unleash so much productivity and innovation that even the poorest benefit.  He claimed that markets are just because they advantage everyone, giving us permission to pursue our wants irrespective of other people’s needs.  Famously he wrote that markets are ‘led by an invisible hand’ though the end of that sentence is less widely cited: ‘to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants’

With the benefit of hindsight we know he was wrong.  Today’s welfare state only exists because 19th century laissez-faire failed to address extreme poverty.  In reality, the market would fill a rich man’s swimming pool before quenching a poor family’s thirst given sufficient disparity in wealth.  Smith was right about capitalism’s productivity and innovation, but he was wrong to claim that market outcomes advantage the poorest.  He let us off the hook regarding the well-being of others, making selfishness consistent with the common good.  This is highly comforting for those who do well, but if something is too good to be true, it usually is.

Markets can be liberating, challenging established hierarchies and empowering people with choices through free exchange.  People facing acute need do not participate in this win-win.  Markets allocate on price and unequal bargaining power at the heart of every transaction systematically favours the stronger side.  Money exerts its own gravity, and tends to mass into fortunes as market prices suck wealth up from the poorest.

On the supply side, all workers sell their produce or their time, but those trading to meet their basic­ needs are forced sellers.  They must accept worse prices and lower wages because they have so little bargaining power.  When your children will go hungry or some other need will not be met, you are not just competing with others in the market but also racing against the clock, because needs get worse over time.  Those who survive this race to the bottom must tread water – they live to fight another day but are no better off.  They cannot afford any advancement, or enjoy any choice, through which the rest of us progress.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 19 Comments

What should the Liberal Democrats offer the British people?

By Michael Berwick-Gooding and Katharine Pindar | Thu 31st July 2025 - 2:55 pm

First of all, consistent policies based on our established and unchanging values. We seek a fair, free and open society balancing liberty, equality and community, in which every citizen is valued.

We have an economic vision rooted in our Liberal vision, based on being pro-EU and protecting the environment, emphasising green growth. We should be pro-growth, which requires there to be businesses and wealth creation. We are committed to ending deep poverty and promoting public services and local communities.

WE SHOULD WANT

  • to change the power structures of our society to make them more liberal
  • to raise the standard of living for everyone, promoting growth by government investment in infrastructure and giving the required assistance to SMEs
  • a fair deal for immigrants settled in this country, but to stop irregular migration by giving safe and legal routes on the Continent, with the chance to apply for asylum there
  • to combat the ill effects of climate change by supporting major home insulation upgrades, the widespread deployment of heat pumps accelerating the transition to electric rather than gas power, with expanded charging infrastructure for electric vehicles
  • to end the economic insecurity of too-high energy costs alongside promoting further inland and tidal wind and solar power and reforming the National Grid
  • to tackle the housing crisis by building 380,000 new homes per year of which 150,000 should be social homes including council houses, encouraging factory-built modular housing and backing major Council housing developments
  • to have an inclusive way of skilling people up including using AI and provide incentives for employers to employ disabled people
  • to ensure employees have a stake in the businesses they are employed in.
Continue reading »
Tagged | 150 Comments
John McHugo

The objections to recognising Palestine as a state

By John McHugo | Thu 31st July 2025 - 12:41 pm

Note that this post has been amended.

Now that it is Government policy (albeit conditional) to recognise Palestine, arguments are going to be raised against it – so be prepared!

Before yesterday’s announcement by Starmer, two arguments had been mentioned rather tentatively by the distinguished, retired diplomat Lord Darroch on Radio 4’s The World At One on 25 July. I say ‘tentatively’ because he felt it necessary to point out in the interview that many of his diplomatic colleagues, both serving and retired, disagreed with him. These arguments were picked up by our very own Lib Dem peer Baroness Sarah Ludford and disseminated on social media. She succinctly summarised them as follows – without, so far as I could see, any gloss of her own:

Since then a third argument has been made, namely that recognition would be “rewarding terror”. This seems to be gaining rather more traction than the other two, since it has been endorsed by the families of some of the Israeli hostages kidnapped on 7 October.

What weight do these arguments carry? The first argument is essentially political, while the second is legal and the third is perhaps best described as a moral argument. Let’s deal with the legal argument first, because it is also relevant to the moral argument, and then finally turn to the political argument.

As long ago as 2006, the  late James Crawford, the leading authority on statehood in international law, Cambridge professor and subsequently Australian judge at the ICJ, provided a cogent reply to the legal argument:

There may come a point where international law regards as done that which ought to have been done, if the reason it has not been done is the serious default of one party and if the consequence of its not being done is serious prejudice to another. The principle that a State (e.g. Israel) cannot rely on its own wrongful conduct to avoid the consequences of its international obligations is capable of novel applications, and circumstances can be imagined where the international community would be entitled to treat a new State (e.g. Palestine) as existing on a given territory, notwithstanding the facts.
Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed, 2006, pp. 447-8.

This is crystal clear. Since Israel is in unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and has frustrated the self-determination of the Palestinian People over many years, it is high time for the international community to apply Crawford’s reasoning and recognise Palestine as a state on the whole of the OPT alongside Israel. For that reason Sir Ed Davey got it absolutely right when he said that British recognition should have happened now, rather than waiting for UNGA in September as Starmer intends.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 14 Comments
Paul Hindley

Introducing the Radical Liberal Summer School

By Paul Hindley | Thu 31st July 2025 - 10:14 am

It is tempting to get caught in a doom spiral of negativity. From the cost of living crisis, the social crisis and the sewage scandal, to wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, a chaotic second Trump Presidency and a looming climate crisis, there is a lot to feel negative about. But liberalism is first and foremost a political outlook of optimism, positivity and goodwill. Conservatives, nationalists and hardline socialists trade in fear and division, whereas we liberals trade in hope. The hope that things can and indeed will get better.

Britain has never more needed radical liberalism. Liberalism when it is at its most radical challenges the political status quo, champions rights and freedoms across society and is tireless in the advancement of social justice and greater equality. Above all, we place our faith in the individual. That each and every individual shall have the power, resources and opportunities to maximise their life chances to the full. Liberalism is bold, ambitious, optimistic and radical, or it is nothing.

It is in this spirit that the John Stuart Mill Institute, alongside the Social Liberal Forum, shall be hosting an online Radical Liberal Summer School event from Monday 11th August until Wednesday 13th August 2025. The theme for our Summer School is “Power in the Liberal Tradition”. Across the three days, we will bring together some of the leading liberal and progressive politicians, academics and activists from across Britain (and beyond). They shall be discussing a range of topics including individual empowerment, the economy, liberal history, international affairs, local democracy and the natural world. The sessions of the summer school shall take the form of speeches, lectures, group discussion panels and seminars. Summer School attendees will have the opportunity to participate in the online seminar sessions, as well as to ask questions to our speakers and panel members.

We already have a large range of speakers confirmed for the event. Since the John Stuart Mill Institute is a non-partisan think tank, our speakers range from established Liberal Democrat names to those of other progressive parties and political campaign groups. We are delighted to be joined by the Liberal Democrat MP Bobby Dean, the Liverpool Liberal Democrat councillor Carl Cashman and the former MPs David Howarth and Michael Meadowcroft. From beyond the Liberal Democrats, we are delighted to be joined by a couple of senior representatives from the Green Party, the former Green Party leader Baroness Natalie Bennett and the former Green MEP Molly Scott Cato.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 4 Comments
Andrew Emmerson

Do voters get the politicians they deserve?

By Andrew Emmerson | Wed 30th July 2025 - 4:30 pm

Well, we’re about to test that maxim again in November. After all our hard work bringing out MPs to 72, I can’t help but feel we should be on Santa’s good list when it comes to electing the next Lib Dem President.

So, what do we need that next president to be?

Well history has broadly divided the legacies into 3 groups. The great orators who fire members up (Farron). The administrators who get things done (Pack) and the non-existent at best. The first two certainly have had their advantages at various points in our history.

Tim Farron largely kept us going during the coalition years. Whilst I’m sure Pack supporters would say his overhaul of Party structures has streamlined us and helped us win the seats we did at the General Election.

So, which now? Neither. We need to break the mould and brace against our biggest weakness. The complacent leadership of the Parliamentary Party.

Our leadership, whilst successful, have in my opinion failed to adapt to party growth. Ed Davey at times feels isolated in the “bunker” and small-c conservative.  As we lose ground to UKIP V.2… and now probably the Corbyn Experiment “your party.”

We as a party have become cowed to a point where we’re too afraid to vote against Conservative amendments in legislation in case we offend people. When one of our most talented and reliable MPs Christine Jardine voted against a cruel and horrible Tory amendment insulting people with Mental Health difficulties, she was summarily dismissed with nothing but contempt. I’m aware too of other MPs who have voted for good Conservative motions who match our own values and goals and have been disciplined by the whips too. We’re trying to have our cake and eat it. We need to vote for what’s good, vote down what’s bad and build cross-party alliances. Work with those we can and achieve things in Parliament. 72 is a nice number, but it’s also not enough. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 6 Comments
Ruth Bright

Racism – the road less travelled

By Ruth Bright | Wed 30th July 2025 - 2:25 pm

A local outdoor arts event. As I brush past a family group sitting on the grass, I briefly meet the gaze of a man in his 30s and he speaks to me:

“Traveller?”

“What’s it to you?”

“Didn’t mean anything by it, just wondering”

“Half”

“Bishops Waltham?”

“No Bradley way, near Basingstoke – they were settled, way back, through my Dad”.

This does not happen often. I can actually date the last time this happened, July 1995, at Goodwood races with my late Dad.

Everyone understands what it means when someone is picked out for visible difference. It is common sense that some minorities are more visible than others. The hierarchy of pain is not the most helpful of devices but since so many (particularly in the Labour Pary) invoke it, let’s go there. The sickening racist abuse experienced by those from a visible minority is scandalous. An abomination. “Traditional” racism might be rife, but it is not, however, respectable; mainstream society does not buy into it. The use of the “n” word is rightly a major, career ending transgression.

Abuse against Romany, Roma, Gypsies and travellers (RGT is an imperfect acronym but it will suffice) is completely mainstream and accepted widely. The words “pikey” and “chav” are everywhere. If nomadic people alight almost anywhere at any time in the Home Counties (where incidentally they have lived since Tudor times) it is immediately a matter for the Police and local government to deal with. Nomadic people are criticized just for existing.

A very recent “unauthorized encampment” in Hampshire produced absurd comments in our local newspaper. Comments incidentally, which were not taken down. First of all, it is offered that all “likeys” are on benefits or sponge because they pay no council tax. But simultaneously the same commenters say they RGT people cannot be trusted so should not be given work if they call door to door asking to earn their keep by doing gardening or odd jobs!

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 5 Comments
Tanvir Ahmad

Rebuilding Gaza: Britain must lead with action, not just recognition

By Tanvir Ahmad | Wed 30th July 2025 - 12:13 pm

This week, Britain made a historic announcement – Prime Minister Keir Starmer will recognise the State of Palestine by September unless Israel meets strict conditions, including a ceasefire and allowing the UN to resume aid deliveries.

It’s the boldest shift in UK foreign policy for decades. But recognition alone will not clear the rubble, feed starving children, or rebuild lives. That’s why I am calling for the UK to go further – to lead the mission to rebuild Gaza.

Recognition of Palestinian statehood is long overdue. Over 140 countries have already done so. But as the UN warns that “the worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out” and aid convoys are looted amid chaos, recognition without a reconstruction plan risk being symbolic rather than transformational.

Why Gaza must be rebuilt

More than 60,000 Palestinians are dead, entire neighbourhoods are gone. UN experts report that over 1,000 people have been shot searching for food. The UK itself estimates 500 aid trucks a day are needed to reverse famine.

The humanitarian crisis isn’t just an emergency – it’s a moral and legal imperative. Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations (1907), occupying powers and international actors have a duty to restore civil order and public welfare.

A Marshall Plan for Gaza

Continue reading »
Also posted in Europe / International | Tagged , and | 11 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: Head in my hands time!

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 28th July 2025 - 5:13 pm

So, God love our party but aaarrrggghhh sometimes it drives me crazy.

So, before I rant (I know…not like me at all, right?; LDV Editor: “Er, if you say so Mathew”), let me say that I do indeed love our party. I’ve been a member for fifteen years, I’ve been a Borough and Parish Councillor, am now a regular ‘Lib Dem commentator’ on various national broadcasters; the family that is our party has helped see me through the death of both of my parents and indeed my own near death illness earlier this year (special thanks to my friends and local Lib Dem Councillors in my patch Stuart Bray and Michael Mullaney for all of their support), and so when I’m sometimes critical-even very critical-of the party, it’s precisely because I love it that I want to see it at its best, defending the least, the last, and the lost, standing up against vested interests, overturning the tables of the establishment, defending LGBT+ equality and our hard earned civil liberties.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 2 Comments
Mo Waqas

What we’ve lost in a world obsessed with conflict: Reflections from South Asia to Southeast Asia

By Mo Waqas | Mon 28th July 2025 - 10:45 am

When I was seven years old, I watched as India and Pakistan stood on the brink of war. Tanks were deployed. News anchors looked panicked. People stocked up on food, and entire communities braced themselves for the worst. Even as a child, I understood something terrible could happen. That fear never really left me.

A few years later, I witnessed Iraq descend into chaos. The fall of Saddam Hussein didn’t bring peace, it created a power vacuum. The West celebrated regime change. But on the ground, it was the start of endless suffering for ordinary Iraqis. I was just a teenager …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Lib Dems need to be less nice, more radical says Politics Home article

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 27th July 2025 - 4:44 pm

An article on Politics Home suggests that some activists want to see us using similar tactics to Reform UK to get noticed.

Based on snippets from the Social Liberal Forum conference last weekend, and an interview with Bobby Dean, the article provides some useful insight into discussions happening not just in St Albans but across the party.

I’m repeatedly hearing people who want us to stop hand-wringing and actually stand up for our values. Abstentions in Parliament on issues where we should take a stance come in for particular disapproval.

I’m still seething from our response to Keir Starmer’s disgraceful speech on immigration, which even he admits he regrets, which basically amounted to “we need to train British people to do jobs.”  We should have been much more robust, as I said at the time:

We should ride a coach and horses through Labour’s plans and we should be bold. We should not give a damn about what the Daily Mail says or thinks.

We should shout about the benefits of being an open, liberal, generous-spirited country and we should not put up with yet another Government failing to meet the needs of our communities by investing enough in public services and housing and then using people who choose this country to live as scapegoats for their failure.  We need big picture emotional language that reflects our values as Liberal Democrats. It’s time to challenge the language of prejudice with good, solid practical ideas that will improve the quality of our lives.

At last week’s Social Liberal Forum conference in Daisy Cooper’s St Albans constituency, our treasury spokesperson heard similar views according to Politics Home.

A Lib Dem councillor later told PoliticsHome: “What are we actually known for? People know what Reform stands for… I don’t think we would consider ourselves to be wishy-washy or centrist, but that is where lots of people have us.”

We are too nice, said one member:

“We’re too nice,” one party member exclaimed during the conference. “Nick Clegg  was unbelievably nice in the coalition, and we got screwed. It is time we start saying it how it is. We can politely say, look, that is an absolute load of bullshit.”

SLF Chair John Shreeve is quoted as saying:

Why is it that Nigel Farage, with barely any policy detail, is dictating the traffic?” he asked.

He’s doing it from a vision perspective, and we are not doing enough to promote our vision.

I think he’s getting away with it because he is not being challenged. While Labour and Conservatives pander to him, there is clear space to call him out on his nonsense. We are perfectly placed to do this and in fact have a responsibility to do so. If nobody comes out with a clear anti populist narrative, there will be a continued rightward drift in policy and government which will harm people.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 29 Comments
Caron Lindsay

UPDATED: Dear Feds, if you want my money, treat me with more respect

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 27th July 2025 - 10:01 am

I posted this in a private group on Facebook and had a comment from a senior party staffer who I won’t name here because it was a private group. Anyway, they commented that they acknowledge the problems with the email and it is already being redrafted for future releases. This is extremely helpful and more than I had expected and I am impressed that they took the time. I think that in future, though, I should restrict my throwing toys out of the pram to weekdays. 

I have just about managed to calm down after receiving the following email  from  Lib Dem HQ on Wednesday.

Dear Caron,

Thank you for choosing to be a member of the Liberal Democrats.

The General Election result, electing 72 MPs, was our best result in 100 years.

In May’s local elections, we got a higher national vote share than the Conservatives, and we now run more councils than the Conservatives for the first time in our history.

We have done extraordinarily well, thanks to your support.

But the danger our country now faces is real. Reform are surging and we are the only party that is consistently beating them in by-elections.

We are going to be up front with you: the first year of a Westminster Parliament is the hardest for us financially. We have a huge amount of work to do, digging in where we have won, and building teams in places where we can stop Reform and win more seats.

There is a huge opportunity in front of us, and huge danger for the country if we do not take it. And the biggest thing holding us back right now is lack of funds.

>We are asking you today to increase your membership contribution by by 8.9%, the equivalent of £8.59 a year.

If you are happy to help: thank you. You don’t need to do anything else. We will automatically increase your payments, starting from your next billing date on 1 April 2026. If you change your mind, you will have 10 days thereafter to let us know.

If you would like to increase your membership by more than the amount stated above, please contact us at [email protected] and one of our team will be happy to help you.

If you want to opt out of this change, please complete this short form and your membership contribution will stay the same as it is now.

(You can change your contribution at any time, if you change your mind either way.)

Whatever you decide – we appreciate everything you do for the Party, Caron.

Thank you.

Best wishes,

The Liberal Democrats

I have to be honest, I am not a fan of this sort of opt-out membership uprating.

Our membership subscription rates are set by Conference and, while I have no objection to people being asked to pay more, I feel that there is a sneakiness to this, requiring you to opt out of an almighty triple inflationary cost. Sending them out in the middle of the Summer also ensures that some people will miss them until they get a nasty shock at their next renewal time.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 28 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Epstein – The History

By Tom Arms | Sat 26th July 2025 - 9:40 am

Theories, threats, counter-threats and conspiracies are flying thick and thin around the name of convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the nature of his relationship with Donald Trump.

Were the two men friends? If so, how friendly? Did Trump know that Epstein was a paedophile before his conviction? If so, how much did he know? Did he, himself have sexual relations with under-age girls? Is Donald Trump part of the deep state cabal of paedophiles who have been running the country according to QAnon and others?

All questions now being hourly discussed within and without the MAGA world and Donald Trump’s political future may hang on the answers.

It is therefore worth reviewing the known historical facts.

Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn in 1953 to working class parents. He was extremely clever and graduated high school two years early and went on to study physics and mathematics at New York University. However, for some reason, which remains unclear, he dropped out after two years.

Despite not having a degree, Epstein landed a teaching job at the posh Dalton School on New York’s Upper East Side. Former pupils there said that he was known for his “inappropriate behaviour” towards under-age female students and that this may have been the reason for his being fired in 1976. The official reason was “poor performance.”

While at Dalton, Epstein became friendly with one of the parents; Alan Greenberg, CEO of Bear Stearns. He quickly hired Epstein as a junior assistant and within four years the former teacher was a limited partner. The following year he set up his own finance house and was soon attracting billionaire clients such as Adnan Khashoggi and Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner. He used his connections with Wexner to recruit models for Victoria’s Secret, many of them underage girls.

Epstein’s mathematical genius earned him a reputation as a Wall Street wizard and millions upon millions of dollars. His wealth went on a 78-acre private island in the Caribbean, a New York mansion, a West Palm Beach mansion and wild parties for the rich and famous and – under-age girls.

Exactly how many under-age girls were recruited for his parties is unclear. The Florida indictment named 26. The Miami Herald interviewed 60. One Department of Justice document said the figure could have been as high as a thousand.

The rich and famous included Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He introduced Trump to Melania and attended their wedding. In a 2002 profile of Epstein in New York Magazine, Trump was quoted as saying: “I’ve known Jeffrey for 15 years. He is a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them on the younger side.”

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Alastair Bowman

How to save hundreds of billions of pounds

By Alastair Bowman | Fri 25th July 2025 - 2:41 pm

Central banks raise interest rates to control inflation.  UK debtors have paid a ballpark £500 billion since rates began rising in November 2021, mostly through higher mortgage and credit card payments, averaging 7% of GDP each year.  The banks keep a chunk, and the rest goes to their clients, with taxes collected along the way.  The average UK saver is getting a few hundred pounds in interest each year but the vast majority of that half trillion (and rising) is going to the already rich.

Yet over half of UK owner-occupation is outright ownership.  Their savings grow from any interest rate increase intended to curb inflation by making us poorer.  The pain inflicted on mortgage holders and other debtors (including government) is all the greater to compensate for the extra purchasing power going to the already rich.  Their higher propensity to save reduces demand temporarily, later adding to the annual £100 billion in inflationary inheritances that the debtors must also counter.

There is a better way.  Inflation management requires pain, but if we inflict it through higher taxes instead of higher interest rates we can use the money to pay off the national debt and restore public finances.  £500 billion exaggerates the savings we have missed in recent years if less pain is needed because tax changes are more immediate and better targeted, but less pain is its own reward.  Paying off the national debt locks the money away, instead of redistributing it to the already rich, which is both counter-productive and highly regressive.

Later in the cycle, as tax rates are cut to stimulate the economy, tax revenues would still accrue relative to the position pre-tightening, only more slowly.  Interests rates would remain the backstop against inflation, deflation, and government profligacy.  Good fiscal governance could see the interest rate unchanged throughout the economic cycle, increasing stability and reducing costs.  Corporations would invest more, easing inflationary pressures.  Currently investment is often cut when companies are hit as collateral damage by interest rate hikes aimed at changing consumer behaviour.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 33 Comments
Josh Babarinde

Josh Babarinde writes: Why I’m standing to be Party President

By Josh Babarinde | Fri 25th July 2025 - 12:04 pm

In November party members will be voting to elect our next Party President. At Lib Dem Voice we welcome posts from each of the candidates – one to launch their candidature (like this one) plus a maximum of one per week during the actual campaign.

Populists are on the march across Britain.

Reform are surging on the basis of exploiting people’s fears and offering snake oil solutions for their own political gain.

The Conservatives – still a formidable opponent of ours – have become little more than a Farage tribute act.

And Labour are increasingly dancing to this dark tune; Starmer’s “island of strangers” speech was the tip of the iceberg.

It is clear that our country cannot rely on anyone else to credibly fight back against the division, pessimism and envy polluting our politics.

And our communities cannot rely on anyone else to boldly fight for liberal values of liberty, equality, community, inclusion, internationalism, environmentalism, and so much more.

That job falls to us.

The Liberal Democrats must be the first and last line of defence against populism.

I’m standing to be our next President to ensure that our party has the energy, focus, and ambition to step up to this fight – at the ballot box and beyond – at such a pivotal moment in our national story.

To do that, and to win elections everywhere, we’ve got to bring people in, build them up and get things done. In particular, we must:

  1. Empower party members to win

I’ll work with ALDC and our Campaigns Team to ensure every member is equipped with the campaign tools and networks they need to challenge populism on the ground.

We know that Lib Dem community politics inoculates our communities against division.

  1. Diversify our party

We need to better reflect the communities we’re ambitious to serve.

I’ll work with the Lib Dem Campaign for Race Equality, Racial Diversity Campaign, Lib Dem Women, Campaign for Gender Balance, the Lib Dem Disability Association, LGBT+ Lib Dems, Young Liberals, and others to craft a strategy to drive greater diversity at all levels in our party, as per the GE2024 review.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 13 Comments
Lord William Wallace

How should Liberal Democrats approach Digital ID?

By Lord William Wallace | Fri 25th July 2025 - 10:10 am

Liberals have a proud record of opposing state intrusion into daily life.  I learned the story of the Liberal role in liberating UK citizens from compulsory ID cards after the end of the Second World War when I was first a student Liberal.  That was, after all, a form of ‘Stop and Search’, giving police and other public officials the right to demand that any one of us walking along the street or coming into an office can prove who we are.  Harry Willcock, who refused to show his ID card to a policeman and afterwards tore it up outside the National Liberal Club, was an active Liberal. His successful appeal against prosecution was led by Emrys Roberts (then a Liberal MP) and Basil Wigoder (a future chair of the party and peer).  Nick Clegg described Harry Willcock as one of his greatest heroes when opposing the last Labour Government’s efforts to introduce identity cards.  Labour’s legislation to introduce a national data base for citizens, with cards to carry, was repealed by the coalition government, with active Liberal Democrat support.

Requiring every citizen to carry a card, to be produced whenever challenged by a police officer, would be an extension of ‘Stop and Search’ which all Liberals would oppose.  But I have become persuaded that opposition to the integration of government data bases is now mistaken, that moves towards a form of digital ID have advantages, and that we should focus instead on ensuring adequate accuracy, transparency and security – and access for citizens to check.

The immediate trigger for raising this is the publication of a government paper on ‘Our Strategy for modern and secure elections’, which sets out plans to move from our antiquated, locally-based electoral registration towards an Automated Voting System (AVR).  An estimated 8 million UK citizens are missing from our electoral registers, because they move too often, because their landlords have not passed on the forms, or because local officials have failed to find them at home when conducting an electoral canvass.  Almost all of them are registered on several government data bases – with National Insurance numbers (NINOs), NHS numbers, tax returns or driving licences.  We are supposed to inform those parts of government with which we interact of changes of address, but often forget to do so – and one Department does not inform another when we do so.  AVR would draw on data bases from across government.

My change of mind on government data bases came during the Windrush scandal.  The Home Office alleged that there were no reliable records that these immigrants from the Caribbean had lived and worked in the UK for decades.  But cross-checking with the DWP and the NHS would have established their presence and protected their rights.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 7 Comments
Jude Parker

Operation Beastie needs you!

By Jude Parker | Thu 24th July 2025 - 6:57 pm

At spring conference, Fraser Graham organised trans pride coloured stall mascots for most stalls in the exhibition hall. This was very popular, with many stall holders bonding with their beasties and most of them finding forever homes at the end of conference.

Following the success of the various yarn beasties at Harrogate, several people asked us if we were planning on repeating it at Bournemouth next September. We are hoping the answer will be “yes, and…”

Yes, and we’d like a calmer crafting experience.

Yes, and now we know people want them, we can be clearer about expectations.

Yes, and we’d like to be able to represent a variety of communities under the plus umbrella.

This last effort was organised in 3 weeks, in secret and at least 40% as a joke. Several of the beasties were items the creators (or original owners) would’ve been sad to lose, including some people’s first ever projects. We no longer have those logistical limitations.

So, if you’d like to help, we need:

Crafters

We need people to make them. Not huge numbers, but the more crafters we have the less effort each crafter will have to make for a given size of impact. Even one or 2 items is one or 2 more at conference. or one or 2 less that those of us taking the lead feel we have to make to fill our target, whatever that may be this time.

We would strongly prefer crafters who are happy for their project not to come back to them. It’s not hugely complicated to keep track of beasties whose creators really want them back, but it would be a calmer experience for the organisers if crafters exclusively donated beasties they were OK with being rehomed.

While most of the Harrogate beasties were crochet, any crafting method that produces a physical thing that could be a stall mascot is welcome.

Host families

Not all of the crafters of the Harrogate beasties attended the conference. Not all were even party members. If you are coming to Bournemouth and you drive, pack light or live locally, would you be able to receive a package and bring it to conference on a non-attending crafter’s behalf? If so, email [email protected] with “beastie host family” in the subject line.

Flags & species

While trans issues have dominated plus’s efforts for the past 5 years or so for obvious reasons, we would love to show love and solidarity to many communities under the LGBT+ umbrella. Especially as we are at least as sick as everyone else must be of the trans community (and their access to medical care, legal rights and basic human dignity) being used as a political football.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | Leave a comment
Roger Hayes

Knowing Rights from Wrongs

By Roger Hayes | Thu 24th July 2025 - 4:46 pm

As a Liberal, I think it is always important to know where we stand on matters and, just as important, to know why we stand there. After ‘do no harm’, a very basic tenet of liberalism is that all people are free to do, say and think whatever they like, when and wheresoever they like, as long as, is so doing, they do not infringe anyone else’s right to do the same. In our liberal democracy, this simple yardstick should be all that a government requires to ensure the freedoms of its citizens and to protect us from those who would seek to restrict or remove them – or to restrict or remove anyone who might hold alternative opinions.

As a result we have laws to control hate speech, inciting violence again people and property, and seeking to disrupt or overthrow democratic assemblies and institutions. In a free society we do not have a right not to be offended – I am offended by the Conservative Party and views of Nigel Farage, but both are (rightly) allowed to exist and speak their minds as long as they do not break the law by restricting or denying the rights of others.

It is in this regard that the Labour government is now sailing close to the wind.

You will have heard me say many times that language is important. I think precise language is very important when dealing with conflict and at times when emotions and tempers might be running high. Here is a bit of background and an example of what I believe separates acceptable protest from the unacceptable, legal protest from the illegal, and free protest methods from terrorism.

For the example I am going to give it might help to know that I have Jewish heritage, and I am intensely proud of that as I am of my Irish, Cornish, Italian and Yorkshire heritage. I am an atheist and have not ever been religiously Jewish and neither, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone in my family for generations. My paternal grandmother had Polish Jewish antecedence and we have traced her Jewish roots back from Krakow in the 19th Century, to Austria in the late 18th Century, and from there back to Russia before that.

I am strongly opposed to antisemitism, as I am to any form of ethnic prejudice based on generic hate. In the current conflict in Gaza, and across the wider region, I try always to be careful how I describe what I think the problems are and where (if any) the blame might lie.

For example, it would certainly be antisemitic to suggest that Jews are in anyway guilty of anything that is happening in Gaza now, or has ever happened there. I do not believe, however, that it is in anyway antisemitic or anti-Israeli to full-throatedly condemn Netanyahu, and the right-wing henchmen in his government, for the atrocities being inflicted on innocent Palestinians. Genocide may well be what is happening, but personally I do not find that language helpful in the circumstances as it deflects from the war crimes that are most certainly being committed in Israel’s name.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 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...