In the press and broadcast media so far there has been conflicting information from Conservative leadership candidates, Labour and UKIP about the future of the Freedom of Movement of EU citizens if and when we leave the EU; the status of EU Nationals already here in the UK and UK citizens already living and working in other Member States. The latter is open to interpretation as so far it would appear to address the individual works and lives in one single Member State.
Jim Wallace delivered this speech in the House of Lords on Tuesday. We thought readers might wish to read it in full.
My Lords, as I expressed during our discussions last week, I was devastated by the result of the referendum. I, along with many Noble Friends and many Liberal Democrats, have a profound and deep-rooted commitment to partnership with our European neighbours. Internationalism is in our very DNA. Our commitment is not to an institution in a particular form; rather it is a commitment to the beliefs and ideals of the wider European undertaking– of a peaceful, prosperous and united Europe, kindling a spirit of reconciliation and mutual cooperation among members.
This is something that I and many Noble Friends have striven for our entire political lives. So the result of the referendum last week is felt very personally on these benches.
What is a liberal? It’s a question that we need to answer, and answer now.
The public have known for some time, or thought that they’ve known, what the Conservatives and Labour are. For years these parties fitted nicely in to easily defined boxes, but that’s changing. Are Labour the Corbynite members on the left? Or the more centrist, so-called Blairites that hold the PLP? And in the Tories, is it the moderate pro-European majority, or the Eurosceptic, UKIP-flirting right?
My great grandfather was a prominent Communist Party member in his community, who went to Spain to train the Republican navy against Franco’s Fascists. Socialism runs deep in my family, and for a number of years I was a Labour Party member, of a similar mind to those who now take to the streets to defend a vision of socialist activism embodied by Corbyn and McDonnell. But something has changed in our country, and many of us have changed with it.
I’m finally getting round to reading David Laws’ Coalition. I’m getting a very strong impression from Laws’ account of his time as Schools Minister that he found Michael Gove, and in particular his adviser Dominic Cummings, to be pretty exasperating. It was slightly surprising, therefore, to see Laws write a column for the Times (£) basically suggesting that Tory MPs should keep in Gove in the leadership race.
He goes out of his way to back up Gove’s account of last week’s Boris-related shenanigans, when most of us think that he couldn’t just have decided on the spur of the …
Both the main parties are currently paralysed as political forces by their leadership battles. The Government is leaderless, the country at a standstill politically. This is our moment to assert our right to be heard as former and future political leaders, and force our presence on the airwaves and on social media. Moreover if the right-wing press will not accept our voice, this is surely the moment to invest in national advertising.
The week of the Chilcot report is the time to remind the country that it was the Liberal Democrats who opposed the attack on Iraq, along with a great mass of the public whose voices were also ignored. We should now claim again to represent the majority of the public, not by ignoring the result of the Referendum, but by acknowledging the many doubts that were felt by people voting either way, and pledging to try to meet the needs that were ignored by their self-obsessed leaders.
While the politicians of the two main parties fight for supremacy, we, the united Liberal Democrats, must fight for the people. With a growing recession, we must fight to protect the poorest, demanding government measures to alleviate probable rising food costs, and extra rises if necessary in the Living Wage. We should demand investment for growth, so that jobs can be created that are not just short-term or on zero-hours contracts, and social security reform to stop penalising those least able to protect themselves. We must insist on more funds for the NHS, more integration of health and social care – and also a welcome and thanks to the immigrant doctors and nurses and care workers. We should demand more social housing and some re-introduction of rent controls. We must develop economic policies which highlight the scandal of excessive pay rises for top executives, challenge the power of sophisticated predators linking hedge funds with top Tories, and promote greater equality through taxation.
This has been a tough week for us all. It’s followed the hard work in the build-up to voting day, the exhaustion of the day itself and the dreadful night as the results saw the collapse of the political and structural certainties we have all come to understand.
Firstly I want to give a huge thanks to all those up and down the country who have worked their socks off campaigning to keep the UK in the EU. Ours was a positive, passionate and patriotic campaign. It was always going to be a tough fight, trying to reverse in a matter of weeks the anti-EU propaganda and anti-establishment mood that built up over many years. But the Lib Dems stood firm, and our thousands of activists can be proud that when the time came, they stood up for the values we hold dear and for what we believe was firmly in the national interest.
On my return to Brussels on Monday, the overwhelming mood amongst my fellow MEPs was not one of anger, but of huge shock and sadness. Sad that a country that they love and admire could be so led astray by the lies and deception of the Leave campaign, and sad for the millions of young people who overwhelmingly voted to remain but who are set to be deprived of the opportunities EU membership brings. There was a spontaneous sign written on the windows of the European Parliament that simply said: “We will miss you.” This is the real European Union. Not faceless bureaucrats, but real people from all over Europe working together, celebrating our differences and eccentricities and doing our best to respond to big common challenges. That’s a vision that millions of people in the UK share. And it’s one we must stand up for in the difficult months and years ahead.
As the Chilcot Report is published, we’ll bring you reaction and analysis from a Liberal Democrat perspective.
I’m thinking back to 15 February 2003. It was a beautifully sunny, but absolutely freezing day. I spent it with my family marching through Glasgow in protest at the proposed military action in Iraq. My husband doesn’t do much in the way of political campaigning. In fact, in the last couple of decades, he’s taken to the streets precisely twice. Once was for this march and the other was to campaign for Britain’s place in the European Union in the run-up to last month’s referendum.
My 3 year old was in a buggy waving a paper dove and still remembers that day.
When the Chilcot Inquiry was announced back in 2009, I was interviewed for a BBC News feature. I was a bit worried that the inquiry would just be another great big pot of whitewash.
Ms Lindsay says her feelings about the war have changed little in the six years since she went on the march.
“It was the first time I had ever been on anything like that. Deep down I think people thought it wouldn’t change anything but we had to give it a try, and I’d do the same again.
“I was totally against the political decision to go to war. I have nothing but admiration for the troops that went out there to do their job.
“I feel that everything we were worried about when we were protesting against the war has come to pass.
“It hasn’t made us any safer and it’s damaged Britain’s international standing in the world. If there had been a better building of an international coalition things might have been different.”
She is prepared to give the inquiry a chance but is dubious about its worth.
“I think we have to give the inquiry a go but at the moment I’m not convinced it will achieve much.
I suspect that in the wall to wall coverage today, one big thing will be missing. There will be comparatively few mentions of the one UK party that opposed the war from the start. That would be the Liberal Democrats.
Taking an anti-war stance is a courageous thing. Charles Kennedy showed enormous courage and resolve in doing so. He was roundly abused, accused of not supporting our troops, called every traitorous name under the sun.
In fact, the Sun, as you would expect, heaped ire on him as this headline shows:
We should remember Charles Kennedy today, and how the press treated him. And how he has been vindicated. #Chilcotpic.twitter.com/Xi75yI3FRu
It was taking a huge risk, too. He suspected, but didn’t know, that they weren’t going to find weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the UK in 45 minutes.
I felt huge pride in the party at the time.
Watch his speech to the anti-war rally on 15 February here.
Also worth watching is his full speech to the House of Commons during the debate on the Iraq War on 18 March 2003. I also include the text from Hansard. Note the the extent of the aggression from Conservatives, including one Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Fabricant, that he faced.
Note the manner of Charles’ intervention. He sticks to the facts and at the end acknowledges the Prime Minister’s sincerity even though he does not agree with him. In a highly charged atmosphere he kept his cool and made his case.
It goes without saying how much we miss him.
Following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I acknowledge with thanks, through him, to the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and to all those concerned in all parties in this House, that an honest option has been discussed and agreed in a cross-party way. In the previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman made a powerful contribution to that cross-party basis, which needs to be heard and discussed rationally today.
Although it is sad that we have lost a very good Leader of the House, there is no doubt, having listened to his brilliant resignation statement in the House yesterday evening, that those of us who are supporting the cross-party amendment in the Lobby tonight, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will do, have gained a powerful additional advocate for the case that we are sincerely making.
Given the events of the past few days and the last few hours, there has been much understandable comment about the drama of the situation. In the next few hours and days, however, we are liable to see even more drama and trauma when what appears to be the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us hope, as we all agree, that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us has ever had any quarrel and who have suffered terribly under the despicable regime of Saddam Hussein.
My mind keeps going to parallels between the worlds of Brexit and Trump and what happened in Germany in the 1930s.
At the time of the referendum I was at the annual conference of the International Society for Psychoanalytic Study of Organisations. A gathering of people from across the world who are used to exploring unconscious processes was a rich context in which to explore what was going on under the surface.
By coincidence, on polling day one conference session was intended to focus on ethical dilemmas. We were shown short films on two famous psychological experiments, the Milgram experiment and the Stanford experiment which are controversial both because people were harmed, and because they shed light on how civilised people can come to behave badly. They have been used to understand what happened in the concentration camps, but are much more widely applicable than that.
The ensuing discussion seemed a little dry, as if there was something important which was being avoided. I took the microphone and made a link with some of the violence of the referendum: the murder of Jo Cox, an incident in a supermarket where someone I had seen earlier in a Vote Leave stall was shouting at a cashier planning to vote Remain, and some very aggressive comments from Leave supporters in door-knocking in the campaign. This is not to accuse Vote Leave of orchestrating violence, but it suggests something was being mobilised (which has become more obvious since then). I commented on the dark streak in Europe: along with our capacity to be civilised, there is a capacity to behave in very destructive ways. I expressed my fear that this was close to the surface in the referendum and struggled with tears as I commented on the way the EU has been set up to contain that destructive streak in the European psyche, and the fears evoked by some in the UK wanting to pull away from that. I was met with a round of applause.
One of the lies that didn’t survive a day after the referendum result was that there would be £350m a week to spend on the NHS. My suspicion is that this number was widely understood to be untrue but was still highly effective.
Now it would have been quite easy for Leave to say that there would be £136m a week to spend on the NHS, and although it is a lesser number, do we really think the political impact of £136m is going to be all that different to £350m (were it true)? Or to £250m? (The amount sent of which some comes back.) All are large numbers beyond our normal experience, and, in principle, if we had that money, we could spend it on a great deal of something good.
12000 new Lib Dems in 7 days. Wow. That’s a lot of angry people. Just the tip of the iceberg though: there are millions more angry people marching to Westminster and angry people venting on Facebook.
Tim Farron is resonating with them. Why?… because he and we are all angry. On 24th June 2016 we woke up in a country that is no longer tolerant, open, progressive or friendly. Love not Leave: we want our country back.
But…
Although this is about the EU for the angry mob, we are about so, so much more than that.
Liberalism is living life how you choose without oppression and without oppressing others: a value all modern Brits hold dear. Brexit has woken-up the inner-Liberal of the digital generation. We need to help them into a new dawn.
Dutch EU Commissioner Timmermans: For me, the British still belong inside Europe
On the day Nigel Farage abandoned the UKIP ships captaincy, with the UK ship still not negotiating the EU harbour exit to go and “rule the waves” (so all Kippers hope), Dutch top politicians, and official spokesmen from both Dutch liberal parties (The LibDems-like Social Liberals of D66, and the Free Market & automobile-loving Liberals of the VVD) made pronouncements which in effect support what the British Liberal Democrats have said all along since the Brexit Referendum result became clear.
These are turbulent times in politics – dangerous and at the same time offering great opportunities to seize the initiative. The Lib-Dems have always been pro-European and we must lead the argument for a very close relationship with the EU post brexit. How to do this? Make a coalition pact with another Westminster party pre the next election.
The Labour party is in disarray with the majority of its members pro-Europe and anti Corbyn. Like all MPs, what they want, above all, is to retain their seats at the next election. This will be a wipe-out if Jeremy Corbyn is leader. So offer them the opportunity to canvass under a Liberal-Labour coalition, e.g. Labour (Lib-lab coalition). Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats would canvass under a Liberal-Democrat (Lib-lab coalition) banner. Both sides would determine where their support was strongest and refrain from putting up candidates against each other.
With the referendum already having had a number of impacts on the value of the pound and the political stability of the UK, what impact will it have on the education of future generations and, more specifically, regarding language education?
It seems that people forget what a huge influence the European Union has had on our workers’ rights and the contribution towards farmers, the NHS, Cornwall… this list could go on forever, but has anyone really thought about the ability for our children to learn languages? Language education is already at risk due to Nicky Morgan and the rest of the department for education, with the majority of language teachers having to teach at least two languages, with French being the main language and a number of schools not offering German or Spanish, despite Spanish growing in popularity.
According to the European Commission, the Barcelona European Council called for action “to improve the mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age”, yet 14% of young people still lack basic knowledge of even one language and, with A Levels of languages rapidly decreasing, it wouldn’t be a surprise if a large portion of the 14% was from the UK. Every year the news reports that the number of modern foreign languages is falling and does leaving the EU mean that this shall continue? Although the English Baccalaureate is going to be made compulsory as of September, what will leaving the EU mean for A Level or University uptake?
After voting for the Conservative party in the last General Election, I abruptly left the Conservatives and joined the Lib Dems. It appears over 10,000 people have taken a similar step in joining the Party since the EU Referendum. Every extra member is a positive BUT c.98% of the population are not members of political parties. It is the 98% this Party must attract on General Election day (importantly, date TBC).
I am not advocating populist policies. I do not want Tim Farron to mimic Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, or even Donald Trump. What I want is for the Lib Dems …
You may have noticed that we haven’t used many photos on Lib Dem Voice since 23rd June.
We have all been ridiculously busy just dealing with the posts that have been streaming in – dozens every day. It does takes a while to set up a new user, prepare a post for publication, and correspond with the contributor if a post needs editing. On the days when I am editing LDV I spend several hours on my laptop scheduling posts and dealing with the ones we can’t publish.
As I wrote last week we haven’t been able to publish everything that has been sent in, and we have had to turn down some perfectly decent posts. Sourcing and adding photos to the posts would have stretched me, and my colleagues, too far, so they have been one casualty of Brexit.
Tim Farron is playing a blinder at the moment. Our clear support of the European Union, while accepting the referendum result, is absolutely right.
But we need a dual track approach here. We need to have an alternative to EU membership lined up. “Plan B”, if you like.
It seems to me that rejoining the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (we left in 1973 after 13 years membership) and staying in the European Economic Area (EEA), is the answer to the current UK post-Brexit conundrum.
There is a reason why the Liberal Democrats were born to lead the 48%; it’s because we have always been on the side of the minority. Admittedly, at nearly half of those who voted, 48% is a pretty astoundingly large minority. But perhaps that is exactly why this is such an exciting moment for us. By pledging to take Britain back to the heart of Europe, we have taken on the leadership of the largest, most energised and inspired minority of voters to emerge in modern times.
For years we have sought to find a core of voters who share our fundamental values of liberal tolerance and internationalism, and indeed for years we have suffered when international issues have been relegated to the second division of political discussion. Here, now, before us, is the national sentiment that most befits our attitudes; frustration and anger towards the nationalists and the isolationists, but also passion and drive to force Britain to be the kind of member of the international community that it ought to be. It is the kind of climate where just being our liberal selves makes us poised to lead the way, and crucially, be instantly understandable to a vast portion of the electorate.
Most suggestions for resolving the “What the (insert expletive of choice) do we do now?” conundrum tend to involve various degrees of access to the Single Market or a General Election. Few are brave enough to suggest that Parliament simply declines to invoke Article 50. Until now.
Professor A C Grayling, Master of the New College of Humanities in London, has written to all MPs telling them that they have a responsibility not to support any such motion. He lists several reasons, not least the paucity of the campaign, the likelihood of the break up of the UK if we leave the EU and the fact that the threshold for such a huge change was set way too low. He has a point. You can’t change the number of places on a toddler group committee without a 2/3 majority. When the party conference considers a vast swathe of constitutional amendments in September, they will need a 2/3 majority to pass. With hindsight, you have to wonder why on earth we let such a major change through on a simple majority.
Harvard’s Professor Kenneth Rogoff agrees that the threshold is too low:
In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU. Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995. But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet. Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.
Labour MP Diane Abbott is being roundly mocked in various parts of the internet because of a question she asked as Shadow International Development Secretary, a position she held until last week when she was promoted to Shadow Health Secretary.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she has taken to assist people in the Indonesian province of Province of Davao del Norte affected by the drought in that province.
The reply was crushing:
There is no province called Davao del Norte in Indonesia.
Actually, there is a place called Davao del Norte suffering droughts. In the Philippines. So a staffer in Diane Abbott’s office made a mistake. We all do it. Why make a fuss?
The Guido Fawkes blog has been one of those poking fun at Abbott. It’s not surprising behaviour from a right wing sensationalist site.
In an emotional and angry speech to Hammersmith and Fulham Liberal Democrats on Friday night, Nick Clegg set out his fury at the result of the EU Referendum. He emphasised how funders of the Leave campaign had their own interests for a low-regualation economy resulting from Brexit:
Paddy Ashdown and Tim Farron have both suggested in recent days that those on the progressive side of politics need to work together to oppose the Tories and deliver change.
Of course, a defining part of Paddy’s leadership of the party was his desire to see closer co-operation on the left.
The Tories need to be beaten, now more than ever, even more than in the 1980s. Their destruction of the country then almost pales into insignificance to the damage they have done with their self-indulgent EU related civil war. How do we achieve it, though, while retaining the integrity of individual parties, most particularly this one? The last thing I want to see is the Liberal Democrats being the smile on the face of the right-wing Labour tiger.
It’s vital that we have a party that stands up for civil liberties and individual freedom in a way that neither Conservatives or Labour have managed.
Politics Home reported an interview with Tim Farron with BBC News in which he talked about the need to work together across party lines:
Asked about the prospect of a merger that would mirror the deal between the SDP and Liberal party that formed the Liberal Democrats, Mr Farron suggested the referendum campaign had led to a reconsideration of the party divides.
“Amongst the things that I think we’ve got out of the referendum is that we’ve discovered, lots of us, who have worked across party boundaries, that we’ve enjoyed doing so,” he told BBC News.
“I shared a platform with many people I won’t embarrass by naming, who they discovered and they discovered we had more in common than just our belief that Britain should be in the European Union.”
When pressed on whether he was open to the idea of a new party, he replied: “We shouldn’t put any construct or constraint on what might happen next. People could come to us, they could set up another party, who knows. But there needs to be a realignment – otherwise we’ll be left with a Tory government forever.”
In today’s Sunday Times (£), Paddy Ashdown has floated the idea of a progressive movement, talking about how political parties have failed the public:
Tim Farron has set out why the Liberal Democrats will fight for those EU citizens who have made their homes in Britain to be allowed to stay post-Brexit.
Both David Cameron and Theresa May have only guaranteed their future to the conclusion of the negotiations. How awful, how unfair would it be if people who had settled, worked hard, married, had families here were forced to leave after the goalposts changed?
How cruel is it to put these people through years of uncertainty?
Tim said:
There is real, and legitimate, upset and worry from European citizens across our country about their long-term status in the UK. Liberal Democrats will not stand by whilst our communities are divided by uncertainty. Regardless of the outcome of any negotiations with Europe around Brexit, EU citizens who have made Britain their home must be allowed to stay.
To Europeans whose lives are now rooted in the UK my message is simple – the Liberal Democrats stand with you, and will speak for you. To the French family raising their children in Manchester, to the Polish mother working to pay her mortgage in Portsmouth, to the German graduate starting his business venture in Birmingham – the Liberal Democrats value you, we will stand by you and we will champion your future here in Britain.
Scotland’s Parliament is just 17 years old, but compared to its centuries old neighbour, it’s really been the grown-up this week. Four of its parties have really got to grips with strategic thinking, looking for ideas to help us through the current mire in which we find ourselves, a mire not of our making.
Today we had our equivalent of the State Opening of Parliament. It only happens once every five years and I was lucky enough to have a ticket. It\s very different from the Westminster event with all its pomp and tradition. True enough, there was a little bit of pomp, with the Queen’s Archers and bearers of such wonderful heraldic titles as “Unicorn Pursuivant.” However, this is very much an event for the people, filled with music, poetry and performance.
We were seated in the Gallery by 10am, an hour before the festivities were due to begin. We originally had fantastic front row seats, but were moved on because they were apparently reserved for the media. The National Youth Choir of Scotland sang songs including the Skye Boat Song, which has a special meaning for Lib Dems, and Burns’ Ae Fond Kiss.
At about 10:50, the state trumpeters who play the fanfare appeared near us. Screens showed the party leaders lined up outside, waiting for the Queen to arrive. We were slightly apprehensive about whether Willie would behave as he has form round royalty. Our fears were heightened when he bounded into the Chamber grinning and was the last to sit down and be quiet. We found out later that Prince Philip had complemented him on his buttonhole. The Duke wasn’t to know that five years ago, Willie hadn’t realised he had to have a buttonhole. His blushes were spared by Annabel Goldie, the then Tory leader, picking him a flower from one of Holyrood’s courtyard gardens.
This is just to follow up my earlier post to talk about why we marched today. These are my personal views.
Since the referendum, there has been an increase in racial abuse directed at people in this country. One of the things I was marching for was to stay loud and clear that immigrants are welcome in this country.
Secondly, I was marching for the 48% of people who voted “remain”, to say that we stand with you, we believe the UK’s future lies in positive co-operation with our European partners. I was marching to say clearly that we believe that whatever settlement is worked through, visa vis our relations with the rest of Europe, we need to have those principles of co-operation and tolerance at the centre of our thinking.
Wow! That was quite a day! I got up at 6am and decided, on the spur of the moment, to go up to London to join the Liberal Democrat contingent at the March for Europe.
After being fortified by a breakfast from a well known food outlet in Praed Street W1, I hot-footed it to the assembly point at the Cumberland Hotel.
I was the first Liberal Democrat there. Nah-nah-na-na-nah!
Actually I was so early I did a recce and walked on. Or I would have walked on, if I had not overheard a comment from one of the two smart, frock-coated, top hatted doormen of the very posh Cumberland Hotel. One of them said to the other:
Probably the most awful of many bad aspects of the referendum is that that very small section of the population who are racists and bigots feel emboldened. They think they have 17 million mates. Social media is awash with reports of attacks and the Police say that reports of hate crime are up 57%. While only a tiny minority of Leave voters are racists, they all need to take some responsibility, alongside the Leave campaign, for allowing this appalling behaviour to flourish.
It’s not just in the last few weeks, though. This prejudice has been stoked endlessly by the media and both Tory and Labour governments for long enough. If they had done what Holly said, years ago, we might not be in this mess now.
A little over twelve months ago, the Lib Dems in York entered into a joint administration on City of York Council. It wasn’t an easy decision to take, but we knew that having increased our representation by a third despite the disappointing national picture, we had a real opportunity to deliver on our manifesto commitments to the people of York.
I am very grateful to many colleagues in the city, including fellow Executive Members, Councillors, local party activists (and our very new members this week!) for their ongoing work. A year on, we thought we’d let you know how we’re getting on.
Greenest City in the North
We promised to take steps towards York becoming the Greenest City in the North, including working with residents to reverse the decline in recycling rates and developing a plan to cut the Council’s carbon emissions. Additionally, we committed to reintroduce additional winter Green Bin collections and rule out cuts to the frequency of Grey Bin collections.
This was confirmed just two months after the election, as our Emergency Budget in July last year financed the reintroduction of 2 Winter Green Bin collections and scrapped Labour’s proposal for extra Green Bin charges. Our increased investment has funded a new recycling campaign and we have re-established a Green Jobs Task Group.
The Liberal approach to dealing with the unpopularity of immigration and immigrants is to challenge that concern. It’s to robustly make a positive case for immigration as a policy and — crucially — immigrants as human beings.
The Liberal approach is to shift attention unfairly directed at them to where it belongs: Government unwillingness to fund housing, the NHS and other public services.
The Liberal approach includes strongly differentiating between migrants and refugees, which lately have all too often conflated by media and politicians, so that everyone understands the different reasons that people want to be welcomed into the UK, be they economic migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, students, or any of a host of other categories that people in different circumstances will find themselves in.
No matter how we try and fool ourselves, migration issues played a substantial part in the Leave vote, and many Remain voters, myself included, voted to remain despite reservations about immigration levels. Doubtless racism played a part, perhaps 2 million of those Leave votes representing the percentage that the BNP received in 2009. The racists didn’t stop being racist, they simply moved to a new home. But over 90% of the 33 million voters were not racists.
When you dig down further as to why people are concerned about migration there is a common theme. As a country we have hugely expensive housing whether buying or renting. We have a creaking and overcrowded public transport infrastructure that is painful to negotiate and roads with commuter jams at 6:00am. We have a healthcare system that cannot cope with the demand yet struggles to pay off PFI stupidity promoted by Brown. We have schools that cannot deliver the quality our kids deserve and in some areas are hamstrung by the number of children with a poor grasp of basic English. Our infrastructure was not built for the numbers of people now trying to use it, and yet still more come in never-ending numbers. Patience has snapped and we must deal with it.
Freedom of movement is a precious right, for me probably the most important, although when it was first established it was reasonably balanced. The freedom to import labour at will, whether for agriculture or high tech projects, is critical to our economic success. And the EU will not allow us the benefits of unfettered access to the free market without freedom of movement whatever fantasyland Boris is currently living in. So we are in a near impossible position. What we need in terms of free trade relies on conceding free movement that we cannot cope with.
David Allen The Hugging Face incident is merely one of many. AI agents have read, digested, adopted, and improved upon all the evil, manipulative, deceptive tricks that hu...
Nick Baird Regarding the Hugging Face incident, surely that means either:
1) OpenAI are so incompetent that they failed to properly sandbox their own software, and ther...
Ben Mathis We absolutely need to create a distinctive “Metro Liberalism” that speaks to the growing number of voters (particularly younger voters) who have limited att...
Peter Davies Indeed. It is one of the few seats you can say there is absolutely no excuse for tactical voting. That does of course rule out our major tactic in bye-elections...
Chris Bertram We could make a start by putting in some effort in the upcoming Holborn and St Pancras by-election. Resigning ourselves to losing and therefore doing nothing f...
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Interview with Paul Spackman, biographer of David Lloyd George
The Joy of Six 1570
Tories tack right as they seek to compete with Reform
Funding Political Parties
Government says it won't tackle election turnout blindspot
David Allen 
Nick Baird 
Ben Mathis 
Peter Davies 
Chris Bertram 