Category Archives: Op-eds

Callum Robertson

This week is SEND week: we have an opportunity to get reform right

By Callum Robertson | Tue 8th July 2025 - 9:00 am

An overwhelming majority of those who interact with the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system are deeply concerned about the quality of provision that young people are getting relative to the ever-spiralling cost of the system.

In policy terms, we have the worst of both worlds, SEND is expensive and delivers inadequate outcomes for those the system is designed to help. Like current welfare reform, there is an implicit systematic failure that means the cost rises exponentially but we have no actual success for the children trapped in a system that spectacularly fails to deliver for the people who need it.

That dire state of existence is why I am cautiously optimistic that Labour have decided to bring reform forward for our young people. That being said, it would be remiss of me to not caution against falling into the same pitfalls that education policymakers have for years. -Namely putting emotion over well-evidenced interventions that raise outcomes for young people with SEND.

Continue reading »
4 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday – Social Insecurity: A right, not a handout!

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 7th July 2025 - 7:45 pm

On Saturday I spent the day just outside of Coventry, at the beautiful University of Warwick, at the Amnesty International UK Amplify Summit (incorporating its AGM and national conference). It was a fantastic day, full of fantastic speeches, workshops, and networking opportunities with hundreds of people who care passionately about the dignity and the human rights of all.

By far the most impactful session that I attended was called ‘Social Insecurity: Everyday Rights in 2025.’ This wasn’t about a situation in some far off place, which you may care a great deal about but doesn’t necessarily affect your own community. This was a session about the impact of government policies on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people right here at home.

Amnesty International UK have produced a truly damning report, entitled ‘Social Insecurity: The devastating human rights impact of social security system failures in the UK.’ It reminds us something which we often forget and that government ministers certainly don’t want people being reminded of: that social security is not a benefit, it is a right.

The report states:

The right to social security is outlined in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by the UK in 1976 (by the then Labour government, it’s worth remembering).

It is also recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 102 (1952).

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Jamie Dalzell

Game, Set, Match: Why Liberal Democrats Must Prepare for Labour’s Autumn Tax Squeeze

By Jamie Dalzell | Mon 7th July 2025 - 5:37 pm

Rachel Reeves has just painted herself into a corner, and Liberal Democrats must be ready to offer the escape route Britain needs.

As Wimbledon reaches its climax, there’s a lesson for Liberal Democrat strategy: the greatest players don’t just react to their opponent’s shots, they anticipate them. With Labour’s recent U-turn on disability benefit cuts, their retention of the two-child benefit cap, and their “triple tax lock” commitment, an autumn tax squeeze is now inevitable. The question isn’t whether it’s coming, but whether we’ll be ready with better alternatives.

Reading the Court

Labour have served themselves into a corner. Having pledged not to raise income tax, National Insurance, or VAT rates. the three taxes that generate £520bn annually, two-thirds of all government revenue, while facing mounting spending pressures, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is rapidly running out of options. The disability benefit U-turn alone adds £3bn to her fiscal gap, while winter fuel payment cuts save just £1.5bn.

This isn’t speculation. The Treasury Select Committee’s 2021 report “Tax after coronavirus” mapped out exactly this scenario, warning that the Conservative “triple tax lock” would come under severe pressure and force governments toward regressive alternatives.

The Treasury Committee’s Prophetic Warnings

What they predicted in 2021:

✅ “Triple tax lock” would become unsustainable
✅ Governments would resort to fiscal drag through frozen thresholds
✅ Capital taxes would be targeted for “quick wins”
✅ Pension tax relief would face restrictions
✅ National Insurance increases would damage employment (Sunak ignored this, and later reversed)

Every warning is now Labour’s reality.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 14 Comments
Rodrigo Palmer

Beyond Neoliberalism: Rethinking freedom to create a post-growth liberalism fit for the 21st Century

By Rodrigo Palmer | Mon 7th July 2025 - 1:37 pm

The year is 1906. With the Conservatives failing to implement social reforms, people were desperate for change. Life under the Conservative government had significantly worsened – Booth’s study found that at least 30% of London’s population was living in poverty. Therefore, the British electorate responded with a landslide Liberal victory. But what sort of change would the New Liberal government bring?

The New Liberal government recognised that the only way to move the country forward was to embrace radical change. Thus, New Liberalism was born. It was a philosophy which for the first time recognised that the state could have a positive role, acting as a safety net for the most vulnerable. New Liberalism laid the foundations for one of our country’s proudest achievements: the welfare state. Free school meals in 1906, National Insurance in 1911 – these welfare reforms were only possible thanks to New Liberalism.

Liberalism laid the foundations for a new paradigm before, and it is now time for Liberalism to do so again. Climate change is the biggest issue that humanity has ever faced, and such a pressing issue requires a radical response. Just as New Liberals realised that classical liberalism was failing them, we must realise that neoliberalism is failing us. If neoliberalism had the answer, then why is inequality the highest it has been in 30 years, why are ecosystems being pushed to collapse, and why are global temperatures still rising? The only way we can progress is if we recognise the obvious – neoliberalism is dead. It must be stopped dead in its tracks and consigned to history.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 20 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 6th July 2025 - 10:05 am

Donald Trump

It has been a great week for Donald Trump. Perhaps his best ever. His “Big Beautiful Bill” has passed Congress. There is nil blowback from Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and the US Supreme Court has handed him another useful decision.

But within his success could be the seeds of failure. Starting with the “Big Beautiful Bill” which, among others, cuts MedicAid to an estimated 10-15 million Americans. These are the least financially advantaged (aka poor) members of society who cannot private health insurance. Many of them voted for Trump.

These voters will not be entirely cut off from hospitals. All hospitals are required to treat emergency cases such as a broken arm. But if you have cancer or a chronic condition which requires regular hospital attention and you don’t have private health insurance, then you will be in trouble without MedicAid.

But the MedicAid cuts will affect not only America’s indigent. Someone will have to cover the increased use of accident and emergency clinics. This will have to come out of either local taxes or increased health insurance premiums for the middle classes. So everyone loses and it won’t take long for them to figure out who is responsible.

As for Iran, there has been virtually nil reaction from Tehran. They bombed a US base in Qatar but warned the Americans of the incoming missiles. Then they accepted a ceasefire. There were no more attacks on Israel. No terrorist attacks on Europe or the US. No closure of the Straits of Hormuz.

Trump’s strategy of attack hard and fast, exit quickly and propose a ceasefire appears to have worked—for now. It is still early days. We don’t know how much enriched uranium the Iranians rescued, or what they will do with it and they are certainly aren’t about to tell anyone. So Iran could still blow up into a “forever war” of the type that Trump has pledged to end.

Finally, there is the Supreme Court which ruled that the lower American courts cannot block Trump’s executive orders as they have been doing. On the surface, this is a major triumph for the president. But one needs to read the written opinion of Trump-appointed Justice Amy Comey Barrett to realise otherwise.

Justice Barrett supported the majority which ruled against the lower courts. Then she laid out a blueprint of how Trump’s opponents could block him without using the courts. Furthermore, the Supreme Court made a deal with the White House than it would accept without question any future rulings of the court.

Ukraine

Good news and bad news for Ukraine. First the bad news. The US is cutting back its supply of weaponry. The reason? Because America has supplied so many howitzer shells and patriot missiles that its own arsenal is dangerously low. It is true. The US does need to replenish stocks.

The Europeans will be able to pick up some of the slack, especially Germany. But not all.

Now the good news. The Russian summer offensive appears to be faltering. Not only that, but 50,000 Russian troops are trapped in Sumy Oblast by Ukrainian forces.

The Russian summer offensive started at the beginning of May and concentrated on north and northeast regions. It was initially successful, capturing some 173 square miles of Ukrainian territory.

But then the Ukrainian counter offensive came. The country’s top general reported this week: “Based on the results of May June, we can say that this year’s wave of the enemy’s summer offensive has failed.” He added that the Ukrainian forces had not only stopped the Russians but were now attacking and had isolated an estimated 50,000 Russian troops.

In other Ukrainian news, Russian and Ukrainian diplomats meeting in Istanbul negotiated another POW swap which took place this week.  Most of the Ukrainians that were released had been in Russian captivity since 2022. All of them were severely wounded or seriously ill.

Finally, according to the South Koreans, the North Koreans will be sending another tranche of troops to help the Russians.

Israel

It is clear that Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu is hoping for an Iran bounce. After all, he has been calling for an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities since 1993 and the American attack is clearly popular with Israeli voters.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 9 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Scary Thoughts

By Tom Arms | Sat 5th July 2025 - 9:19 am

JD Vance is the bookie’s choice to be the next president of the United States. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel is the all-important money man behind JD Vance.

But just as important as the money behind the cash are ideas. Vance may be the political cart wagon. Money from Thiel and other Silicon Valley Billionaires provide the dogged mule to pull it. But the wagon needs to filled with ideas if the journey is to have any meaning. And the fresher the better.

The ideas are coming from 51-year-old American Curtis Yarvin and 63-year-old British Academic Nick Land. Their political plans are truly scary.

The two men cloak their thinking in a convoluted jargon which includes phrases such as “accelerationism,” “dark enlightenment,” and “speculative realism.”

But basically they reject the ideas of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment which are the philosophical bedrock of the US constitution and current liberal Western democracies. They are also racists, ultra-capitalists and autocrats.

They advocate using technology to “accelerate” capitalism in such a way that destabilises existing social and political structures and creates a new strong man rule guided by a handful of technocrats. Democratic equality, in their opinion, is a parasitical brake on world order.

So far the philosophy of Land and Yarvin has been confined mainly to America, and US-based Yarvin has become the more prominent advocate of the Dark Enlightenment. Through his work as a blogger (under the pseudonym of Mencius Moldbug), he has influenced not only Thiele and Vance but is also said to be the guiding inspiration behind Michael Anton, Trump’s Director of Policy Planning.

Yarvin is particularly controversial on the subject of race. He claims that he is not a racist but insists that White people have a higher IQ than Blacks. “IQ is real,” he wrote. “Race is real. Their correlation is real. Deal with it.”

Yarvin also goes out of his way to defend the slavery of America’s Ante Bellum South. “It was neither cruel nor inefficient,” he wrote. “In fact it may have worked well in its time. Certainly the slaves were treated better than industrial workers in the industrial north.”

As for the abolitionist movement, Yarvin says it was not “a moral crusade but a self-righteous liberal crusade which was less about justice and more about power and ideological control.”

Perhaps more controversial are Yarvin’s views on liberal democracy and how to deal with it. He argues that democracy is “inherently corrupt, inefficient and prone to decay. Public opinion is shaped by the media and academia (A combination which he and Land call the “Cathedral”) which creates an illusion of consent.”

Countries should not be governed as states responsible to their citizens but as a private company headed by an all-powerful CEO. “A country” writes Yarvin,”is not a family. It is a business.”

Continue reading »
Tagged | 13 Comments
Jack Meredith

We can both sympathise with Reeves and not excuse the cuts

By Jack Meredith | Fri 4th July 2025 - 12:41 pm

On Wednesday, 2nd July, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves was seen crying during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Reeves has stated that the reason for her tears was a personal issue, which she would rather not discuss in public. A perfectly reasonable request that I’m sure everyone can relate to.

I’ve had people close to me mock the Chancellor for displaying her emotions, calling it “unprofessional” and, in some cases, question whether Reeves is up for the job. These same people, to my knowledge, did not say anything when DUP politician Jim Shannon cried when questioning then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Downing Street parties during lockdown. 

These situations are markedly different, presumably, but the fact remains that there is a disparity in the treatment of politicians here, despite both displaying emotion.

I’m prefacing my article with this statement as I want to stress a rather important point that I’m seeing being written off on social media: you can feel empathy for someone, even a public figure, and still hold them accountable.

The government’s welfare reforms, as I previously covered, are set to plunge 430,000 people into poverty by removing their access to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). It is a cruel policy that was meant to save £5.5 billion, which has now been shown not to be the case.

And Rachel Reeves, along with many other Labour MPs, has supported this policy, with Reeves arguably being a driving force behind it due to her strict self-imposed financial rules, which require government departments to make savings wherever possible.

But that leaves us with the question: SHOULD we feel bad for Rachel Reeves? Some have argued that this is not the case, as she is in a position of power and has used those powers to approve cuts to welfare for those who need it most. I struggle to abide by this view.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 1 Comment
Jack Meredith

This isn’t the future Beveridge fought for

By Jack Meredith | Thu 3rd July 2025 - 9:16 am

Social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The state should offer security for service and contribution. The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.

These were the words of William Beveridge in his work on “Social Insurance and Allied Services”, more commonly known as The Beveridge Report.

Thanks to Beveridge, the UK has a healthcare system that is free at the point of use and a welfare state that cares for the sick and elderly. While Nye Bevan may have been the implementer of the NHS, Beveridge was the architect.

How ironic, then, that this week the same party which implemented Beveridge’s plans for healthcare would be the same to trample on the welfare state. The sentiment of encouraging individuals to get back on their feet was abandoned entirely by Labour this week, as their welfare reforms passed through Parliament, ensuring that future Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants would need to face a harsher means test just to receive support to afford necessities.

And to top it all, 430,000 people will be plunged into poverty with not a penny saved with these reforms.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 64 Comments
Andrew Chandler

Labour’s social security fiasco and “ERG” moment

By Andrew Chandler | Wed 2nd July 2025 - 1:36 pm

In the slow unravelling of Labour’s Welfare Reform Bill, something revealing happened — not just about policy, but about power. For all the promises of “stability” and “competence” that Keir Starmer had promised a year ago, we instead saw a government conducting itself like an actor who forgets their lines but insists on taking centre stage anyway. 

The Bill, in its first draft, was a monument to both arrogance and clownish stupidity. The Government insisted for weeks that its plan would still go ahead for economic and social necessity, despite the mounting rebellion that they faced. 

Under pressure — moral, political, and parliamentary — the government stumbled backwards in a desperate attempt to save face. Concessions were made. Even more new commitments and concessions emerged as the Bill was being debated. They conceded in the last hurdle that the Stephen Timms Review will now be conducted before the changes to Personal Independence Payments are implemented, although, there is not yet a timetable for this, nor is it actually written into the Bill.

What manner of government operates like this, by surprise and stumble? What arrogance thinks it can turn the lives of carers, disabled people, and the chronically ill into footnotes in a budget sheet? This is no way for a Government to conduct policy,  making changes as the clock was ticking towards the time for them to huddle around the voting chambers. It is something you would expect from a “Thick of it” or “Yes, Minister” episode – not pantomime played in the real world of politics. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 10 Comments
Mark Valladares

Diary of a Returning Officer: Week 2 – some thoughts about diversity…

By Mark Valladares | Wed 2nd July 2025 - 9:05 am

So, having asked a bunch of questions designed to smooth the selection process, a Returning Officer’s mind turns to what the various parts of the Party want to see.

And that’s a particularly relevant consideration given the debates we’ve had about candidate selection this year. The debate in Harrogate revolved around two core themes:

  • Diversity – by including the Vice President responsible for working with ethnic minority communities, this would be built into the process and made a key priority. In addition, action would be taken to encourage greater representation of women amongst the candidate pool.
  • Scheduling – a co-ordinated, planned timetable for selections would enable better use of volunteer time to help run them, enable more action to be taken to improve the diversity of our candidates and better planning for and provision of training for newly selected candidates.

I admit that the detail was a bit vague – I may be being a bit diplomatic here – but the basic premises were pretty unarguable. The catch is that the new structures designed to deliver these things have no authority yet, given that only the Welsh Party have ratified the required constitutional changes.

Continue reading »
Also posted in Party policy and internal matters and Selection news | Tagged | 10 Comments
Paul Walter

Liberal Democrats should oppose the proscription of Palestine Action

By Paul Walter | Tue 1st July 2025 - 8:55 am

Liberal Democrat parliamentarians should vote against the proscription of Palestine Action.

Yes, members of that group should take responsibility for illegal actions that they take. The law is already quite draconian – especially with the invocation of the Terrorism Act. However, the organisation should not, as a whole, be made illegal in a liberal society where protest is tolerated. Making Palestine Action supporters open to imprisonment is simply unconscionable in modern Britain (and Northern Ireland).

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 44 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: Glastonbury, the Catholic Church, free speech and the boundaries of Liberalism

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 30th June 2025 - 4:50 pm

Well, that was quite a weekend wasn’t it?

Firstly let me say that I’m no fan of Glastonbury. I don’t own a pair of wellies, and the idea of spending hours in a muddy, potentially damp field fills me with dread.

When I saw Elton John at Grace Road in Leicester almost a decade ago, I did so from the comfort of a VIP box and I watched Sting live at the very posh Atlantis Palm in Dubai. I’m far from posh (I’m a proud Working Class lad… honest) but I’ll admit to preferring comfort over muddy fields and camping.

But I know lots of people enjoy Glastonbury, whether in person or via TV and Radio. And I know that it’s always had a bit of an edge. It attempts to do mainstream (Dame Shirley Bassey, Rod Stewart etc) alongside the very alternative (this year including the controversial Kneecap and Bob Vylan) and that’s a potentially very tricky tightrope to walk… especially when you throw in that it’s being covered live (or, at least, as live) by good old Auntie, on BBC TV and BBC Radio Two (and you don’t get much more middle England than that).

BBC management tied itself up in knots about what to broadcast and what not to. It decided not to stream Kneecap live, for fear of in-PC outburst but did carry Vylan live which proved to be, well, depending on your point of view I suppose, not exactly the best decision ever made by the Beeb.

A number of very controversial things were said, including the apparent incitement of death against the Israeli Defence Force.

Continue reading »
10 Comments
Michal Siewniak

Some thoughts on Men’s Health Month

By Michal Siewniak | Mon 30th June 2025 - 1:30 pm

I absolutely love my Sunday routine. Waking up, as always, at 6:30am and going for a long walk. My routine started during the pandemic and luckily, it has never stopped. I really value this “me” time, which is combined with an opportunity to clear my head, slow down and simply breathe without having to think about my next move.

The other aspect of my Sunday walk is that it also provides a fantastic occasion to deepen my relationship with some of my friends, who don’t mind starting a day when most people are still fast asleep!

June is often dedicated to Men’s …

Continue reading »
Tagged | Leave a comment
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 29th June 2025 - 8:30 am

Iran

The Mullahs have brought Iran to the brink of disaster. Their theocratic Islamic anti-Israeli, anti-American crusading state has sown the seeds which its people are now reaping.

The string of proxies which comprised Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” has collapsed. Syria’s President Assad has fled to Moscow. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have been militarily and politically castrated. Defense experts believe that the regime has already fired half of its ballistic missiles.

Whether or not the regime’s enriched uranium was rescued from Trump’s “bunker-busting bombs” is irrelevant. The important point is that Israel now controls Iranian airspace and American bombers could attack unmolested.

The first responsibility of any government is to provide protection against attack. The Mullahs have signally failed in that primary task.

On top of that economic sanctions have brought the country to its financial knees and women and young people have refused to accept the strict codes of Sharia law. Their rebellion against imposed social norms is demonstrated by the fact that Iran is one of the world’s major consumers of pop culture.

The country is therefore ripe for regime change. In fact, it has been headed gradually in that direction for years as successive elections have seen “progressive” candidates garner an increasing share of the vote. A good example was last year’s victory in presidential elections of Masoud Pezeshkian over the Islamic candidate.

Exactly what might replace the clerics is unknown. The Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, has offered himself as a transitional leader until democratic elections can be held. The exiled women’s rights leader Masih Alinejad has also been mentioned as well as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi. Other possibilities are leading technocrats from the Katami or Rouhani Administration and, of course, any military leader who has not been assassinated by the Israelis.

Opportunity awaits all of above—and more.

Iranian regime change would be disastrous for the cause of global Jihad. It would also be very bad news for Russia and China.

Vladimir Putin already suffered one Middle East setback with the collapse of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. A collapse of the Mullahs would be even worse as Russia shares a maritime border (the Caspian Sea) with Iran and has a long history of involvement in Persian affairs.

The Russians have been carefully cultivating relations with Israel for decades. Moscow advised Tehran are how to evade Western sanctions and the two countries have been beefing up their respective infrastructures to improve north-south trade through Eurasia.

After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Iran became a major supplier to Moscow of Shahed drones which are now being produced under license in Russia. In January of this year the two countries signed a major security partnership which included the sharing of intelligence and military technology. It, however, stopped well short of a military alliance.

Iran is essential to China’s policy in the Middle East. To demonstrate this, Beijing in 2021 signed a 25-year strategic partnership with Tehran and agreed to invest $400 billion in the country.

China is almost totally dependent on oil from the Gulf for its oil and gas energy needs. To guarantee the flow of oil it must diversify away from the pro-American suppliers of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. Iran enables them to do this. As a result, China ignores western sanctions and imports 20 percent of its oil and gas requirement from Iran.

Iran is also the Middle East link in China’s ambitious Belt/Road trade network.

Its staunch anti-Americanism is also useful to Beijing at international forums such as the UN. China reckons that Iran could be important in re-shaping international institutions so that they have a pro-China bias instead of the current pro-Western bias.

Finally, China’s brokering of a diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia has allowed Beijing to protect itself as a peaceful player in the region in contrast to America’s military-based power.

An upset in New York

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 15 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an ex pat: A new era

By Tom Arms | Sat 28th June 2025 - 9:28 am

Trump’s bombing of Iran and the NATO summit mark the beginning of a new era in international relations.

They were both a political success for the American president.

They were also both a disaster for international law and the rules-based order that has underpinned the longest period of peace and prosperity in world history.

We have now entered an age of strong man politics where laws and political outcomes are determined not by legal precedence and a sense of equality and justice, but by the strength of the political leader and the country they lead. In short, might is right.

Many argue that it has always been thus. To a large degree they are right. But since the end of World War Two the establishment of international structures, law, alliances, global trade and treaties have acted as a brake on unfettered power. Trump has dismantled—or is in the process of dismantling—the post-war world order and removing the brake.

Let’s start with the bombing of Iran. Depriving Iran of the ability to have a nuclear bomb is a good thing. Iran is a dangerous ideologically-driven rogue state. However, the way in which the bombing was organized was another nail in the coffin of international law.

There was no attempt to secure international backing for the attack. There was no attempt to even secure domestic or congressional or bipartisan backing for the attack.

Donald Trump did not try for a UN Security Council resolution. He did not consult with his NATO allies. It is debatable whether or not he should have sought a declaration of war from Congress as the constitution stipulates. But he should have at least conferred with the senior members of both parties in the House of Representatives and Senate. He didn’t.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 13 Comments
Judi Conner

Facing the harrowing facts: it’s time for bold action on Gaza and the West Bank

By Judi Conner | Thu 26th June 2025 - 12:37 pm

After more than a year and a half of bombardment, siege, and systematic starvation in Gaza, it is becoming harder than ever to grasp the true scale of Israel’s atrocities there.  Not because the evidence is lacking, but because the horrors have become so appallingly routine.

Since March, when Netanyahu abrogated the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement, and effectively curtailed the further release of Israeli hostages, the Israeli military has killed almost 6,000 Palestinians, bringing the total Palestinian death toll to 56,000. Day after day, dozens of Palestinians are killed by Israeli soldiers while in their homes, in shelters, or in the queue for aid. Critical infrastructure has been destroyed, attacks on medics, aid workers and journalists have become commonplace, and famine is no longer a looming threat but a pervasive reality.

This week, Defence for Children International and Doctors Against Genocide co-published a report that gives a harrowing account of Israel’s weaponisation of starvation against Palestinian children in Gaza. It documents in unflinching detail 33 cases of child starvation, nine of them fatal, caused by Israel’s systematic obstruction of humanitarian access to the Strip. Newborns, infants and children with chronic illnesses were found to be especially vulnerable to the effects of malnutrition and dehydration, and the report concludes that Israel is using child starvation as a method of genocide, with catastrophic consequences for existing and future generations.

These findings come alongside near-daily massacres at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s food distribution sites. More than 450 Palestinians have now been killed while attempting to access lifesaving supplies. Desperate, hungry civilians are being forced to choose between starvation or Israeli gunfire. These are clear war crimes, as the UN human rights office recognised this week, and the UK should be using every lever available to stop them.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 29 Comments
Jack Meredith

Starmer’s safety net shredded

By Jack Meredith | Thu 26th June 2025 - 9:05 am

Both highs and lows have marked Keir Starmer’s premiership.

With achievements such as beginning the process of renationalising railway services, committing more funding to securing Britain’s defence capabilities, and the slow march towards renegotiating the UK’s relationship with the EU, you could be forgiven for assuming Labour’s period in power has so far been a success.

That is, of course, until we consider the more harmful decisions this government has made.

The government had, for the longest time, defended cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance for millions of pensioners, until mounting backlash forced them to reverse their decision. Most recently, it has decided to make one of the most significant cuts to welfare since the 2010 Coalition government took office. The decision, as analysed by the government, will result in the removal of Personal Independent Payment (PIP) benefits for 800,000 people. This is despite numerous charities, including The Big Issue and Scope, along with Martin Lewis’ Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, calling on the government to rethink its strategy and avoid what they call “catastrophic impacts”.

And it seems it’s not only charities that oppose the government’s decision, with more than 120 Labour MPs set to rebel against the vote, and one of its whips, Vicky Foxcroft, resigning over the reforms. Despite these setbacks, Keir Starmer has vowed to press on with his plans to cut welfare, stating that the current system is “unsustainable” and that “1,000 people a day going on PIP”.

The question remains: how will Starmer get his reforms through? The answer might present itself in the form of an unlikely alliance: the Conservative Party. Speaking to Sky News, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that her party would be willing to vote in favour of the reforms if the government met three key commitments: reducing the welfare budget, increasing employment, and not raising taxes.

Will Starmer accept the support of Labour’s longtime political rivals to get his reforms through? That remains to be seen. But what is a sure bet is the possibility of rebelling Labour MPs calling for a vote of no confidence in their leader if he does.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 2 Comments
Lord William Wallace

Whatever happened to political leadership?

By Lord William Wallace | Wed 25th June 2025 - 11:25 am

The style of political campaigning today has become infinitely more professional than when I first became involved in politics.   In the 1960s the news cycle was far slower and gentler; TV and radio interviewers treated politicians with respect, and would allow them to offer long answers without interruption.  Now we have ‘breaking news’, daily opinion polls, multiple staff to advise and aggressive interviewers.  Political leaders are far better equipped to follow the headlines and shifting public moods.  But do they still dare to lead?

The UK’s debate on public spending represents a classic example of government and main opposition doing their utmost not to explain underlying choices to the public, while following conflicting evidence of popular preferences – lower taxes, higher public investment, resistance to cuts in health and welfare.  Ever since Margaret Thatcher used the additional revenue streams from North Sea Oil and the proceeds of privatisation to fund current government spending rather than to build a sovereign wealth fund, Conservatives (like their Republican allies in the USA) have declared themselves the party of low taxation and a smaller state – without explaining to voters what cuts would be needed to reach those goals.  Labour was so wary of challenging that myth that it pledged not to raise any of the largest sources of revenue if it won the 2024 election.   The only party that has explicitly entered an election campaign with a pledge to increase taxes was Paddy Ashdown’s Liberal Democrats in 1997, with our ‘penny on income tax for education.’  A senior Labour adviser told me when we published our manifesto that ‘nobody will vote for a party that says it will increase taxation’ – though quite a few did.

Labour leaders knew very well before the 2024 campaign started that the rising number of pensioners is driving up the welfare and health budgets, that Tory cuts in public investment had left an urgent need to rebuild hospitals, schools, railways and roads, and that leaving the EU had damaged our economy and thus the Treasury’s revenue stream – by some £40 billion, according to think tank calculations.  Facing the wrath of the right-wing media, the challenge of Reform and the Tories, they did not dare to explain the position to our uninformed electorate.  On top of all that, we now face additional challenges: a downturn in the global economy and international trade, resulting from Trump’s disruptive tactics and spreading international conflicts and the unavoidable commitment to increase defence spending substantially.  Keir Starmer has made very little effort, however, to explain to the British public the choices that we face: he’s not a natural political leader, more a manager.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 14 Comments
Simon McGrath

Lib Dem Stockport awarded Local Authority  of the Year at Municipal Journal Awards 

By Simon McGrath | Wed 25th June 2025 - 10:25 am

At the Municipal Journal Awards last Friday, Stockport Council were given the award of “Local Authority of the Year “  with the judges singling out their “ ‘standout’ submission for its ‘clarity of purpose and impact’ and a ‘commitment to people-centred progress’.. 

The judges also said that  “The “OneStockport” ethos shone through bold investment, strong service delivery and genuine co-production.”

In an article earlier this   year Cllr Mark Hunter (until May 2025 Leader of Stockport Council)  explained their approach.  

 I was particularly struck by the attention to building new homes: 

Our ‘One Stockport’ approach unites public, private and voluntary sectors, ensuring everyone has a stake in our borough’s future. For example, our Mayoral Development Corporation has delivered more than 1,200 new homes and is on track to reach 8,000 by 2040, creating vibrant communities and opportunities for all.

And helping poor families:

Since April 2023, we have helped 49,000 residents’ access nearly £20m in benefits and written off £3m in debt. These are not just numbers, they are lives transformed.

Lib Dem Councils were shortlisted for numerous awards 

and  Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council won the award for Senior Leadership Team of the Year.   Council Leader Millie Earl said: 

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , , , and | Leave a comment
John Medway

More thoughts on GDP and growth

By John Medway | Tue 24th June 2025 - 10:16 am

My thanks to Tony Vickers for usefully setting out his take on the subject of GDP in last Friday’s Lib Dem Voice, Global Capitalist Economics: time to unmask GDP?. Here in response is my own take, which isn’t far from his.

I see the fundamental aim of any progressive movement to be the enhancement of human well-being, including that of future generations. A progressive government needs to recognise four preconditions for sustainable and enhanced well-being: a supportive physical environment, such as a stable climate, clean water and fertile soils; a healthy economy free from such scourges as poverty, squalid …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 26 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: Why are we sitting on the fence on America’s strikes on Iran?

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 23rd June 2025 - 4:37 pm

Sometimes our party or, at least, its leadership, leaves me with my head in my hands. This past weekend and, indeed, today is one such occasion.

On Wednesday at Prime Minister’s Questions, or deputy PMQs as it was as Starmer was at the G7 in Canada, our own deputy leader Daisy Cooper reminded the House of Commons of the Lib Dems brave and right leadership of the opposition to the Iraq War back in 2003 and warned against the UK once again backing another United States misadventure in the Middle East.

Well all I can ask is: what happened between Wednesday and Sunday? Did we think the UK should oppose action against Iran when it was only a theoretical idea? Has Ed overruled Daisy? Or have our leadership as a collective had a case of the jitters and (as always, some might argue) are they running scared of Tory voters in the shires?

The statement our leader put out yesterday managed to basically use up quite a number of words to absolutely nothing at all.

Do we support the action? No answer.

Do we oppose it? No answer.

We are sitting on the fence, yet again, when we could be, in the spirit of Charles Kennedy, leading the opposition to a President of the United States who is chaotic, unhinged, and who is riding roughshod over Congress and the usual way things are conducted.

A convicted felon who cares not one jot about checks, balances, and due process, who cares only about himself and his agenda. He apparently doesn’t even care about his own MAGA base to whom, pre election, he made very clear his opposition to American military participation in other people’s wars and who stridently made clear that, in his view, America should not act as the world’s policeman.

Then again, Trump is using the American military against U.S. citizens using their first amendment right to protest his disgraceful stances on immigration including ‘deporting’ U.S. citizens (which is rightly being challenged in the courts).

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 11 Comments
Adrian Sanders

Here we go again…

By Adrian Sanders | Mon 23rd June 2025 - 12:53 pm

I have woken most mornings since President Trump came to power with a feeling of foreboding as I switch on the radio in the morning to discover his latest announcements. Add to that a sense of déjà vu when events in the Middle East top the news and I can’t say I start the day in the best of spirits.

Back in 2002 an American President was convinced that regime change in a Middle Eastern country would put a stop to terrorism carried out by so called Islamic groups and avenge the atrocity that occurred on the 11th September 2001, better …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Barry Smith

A Monument to the Past, a Barrier to the Future

By Barry Smith | Mon 23rd June 2025 - 9:42 am

“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,” said Winston Churchill, defending the decision to retain the adversarial layout of the House of Commons during its post-World War II reconstruction. Looking at the way our political system functions today, it’s hard not to agree with him.

Entering the Palace of Westminster, one is immediately immersed in centuries of history. The very walls radiate tradition. Westminster Hall — where Queen Elizabeth II lay in state — dates back over 900 years. The weight of British history is tangible, steeped in the legacy …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 15 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 22nd June 2025 - 10:31 am

 

Trump

MAGA is divided. Its strength in the past that it has been united behind one man—Donald Trump.

Whatever he said was taken as gospel. Whatever he did was heroic.

But now there is a possibility that he may decide to join forces with Israel and drop a bunker-busting bomb on Iran’s underground nuclear enrichment facilities. As a result some of the shine is coming off MAGA’s great leader.

“This has not been thought through,” said Trump’s former campaign manager Steve Bannon. He added: “Stopping forever wars is one of the three planks of the MAGA Movement.”

Tucker Carlsson is known as Trump’s lead trumpeter. “I am afraid this (the US bombing of Iran) will see the end of the American Empire,” he said.

And then there is loony MAGA to the core Marjorie Taylor Greene: “Forever wars, intervention, regime change, put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke and will ultimately lead to our destruction.”

Then on the other side are figures such as senators Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell. They have both called on the president to support Israel and strike Iran while it is at its weakest. But then they are Old Guard rather than MAGA.

Iran

Iran desperately needs friends. Unfortunately for Tehran they appear to be backward in coming forward.

The two most likely candidates for a supporting role are China and Russia. The Russians have been the grateful recipients of Iranian-made drones which are making an impact in the Ukraine War.

Moscow was quick to condemn the Israeli attack which it said was unprovoked and in breach of the UN Charter. The Russians also accused Moscow of undermining diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to peacefully abandon any nuclear ambitions.

That all sounds very warlike, and in January of this year Tehran and Moscow signed a 20-year “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” which covered a wide range of interests including, defense, intelligence sharing, nuclear technology and energy. The agreement, however, does not commit Russia to come to Iran’s defense if the latter is attacked.

On Thursday Moscow closed all of its diplomatic offices in Iran and withdrew its entire diplomatic staff. They were needed if Putin was going to provide substantive aid.

China—in total disregard of sanctions—gets 20 percent of its oil from Iran. In 2021 Tehran agreed to become a key link in China’s Belt/Road Initiative. In 2023 China brokered a diplomatic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

China wants to increase its influence in the Middle East and its sees Iran as its Trojan horse in achieving that goal. Unfortunately it took four days for President Xi Jinping to get around to even making a statement on Israel’s attack. And then it was to offer China’s good offices as a peace broker rather than as no-holds barred Iranian supporter.

The fact is, Tehran is a rogue state. It exports terrorism and destabilises the world order. Few people outside of Iran would grieve its demise and many inside would also be glad to see the fall of the theocracy. But that could only make the mullahs more dangerous as they are backed into a corner with no option but to lash out in return for a guaranteed ticket to an Islamic paradise.

Gaza

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 1 Comment
Ed Fordham

David Boyle (1958-2025) – the nicest of reluctant philosophers

By Ed Fordham | Sun 22nd June 2025 - 8:57 am

When the histories of modern UK liberalism are written – and the tally of inspirations, ideas and motivations are drawn up… then the name of David Boyle (1958-2025) should feature.

It was lunch with Cllr Lord Greaves of Pendle, I think, when we agreed that local government and the Liberal Democrats needed an injection of energy. Tony’s reply was without hesitation: David Boyle. Cllr Richard Kemp had seen David speak at a conference on mutuality and ecology-led economies and had recently become leader of the Lib Dem Group at the Local Government Association (LGA): he also wanted to mobilise David’s talents.  In no time at all I had the privilege of offering David a contract to write an account of Liberal Democrat councils who were in control and positions of power: Power Actually.

And so began an LGA funded programme with David as he surveyed, met, interviewed and researched what Liberal Democrats were doing locally when they were in positions of power. Power Actually: a study of Liberal Democrat localism in action (2007) was followed by Greening Actually: environmental action through the local perspective (2009).

What David had enabled as a manifesto of achievements and with it a transformation in our approach to local government. Saying what we did, why we did it and what difference it made. That work and its legacy will stand the test of time and it is there for all to read. David was rightly pleased with both publications.

When ‘Power Actually’ came out David was immensely proud at the reaction – it was his compilation and collation of ‘our’ story. I recall at the launch Council Leader, the late Cllr Serge Lourie paying tribute to David – “David not only heard what we said, but he listened to what we were trying to say.”

David was not new to the Liberal Democrats – a longstanding activist and indeed former Young Liberal – he knew our political landscape.  When the Editor of Liberal News, Mike Harskin, died suddenly in 1992 David was asked by Chris Rennard to take over as Editor. David rose to the moment and was to be there for six years, editing a weekly paper that was driven by its diverse readership and reflecting both geography and quirkiness that it entailed.

And after he served as editor he served four years on the Federal Policy Committee where he was a calm, genial and inspiring source of ideas and wisdom.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 11 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Former Lib Dem News Editor David Boyle has died

By Caron Lindsay | Sat 21st June 2025 - 11:50 am

It was a huge shock to wake up to the awful news that former Lib Dem News Editor David Boyle died suddenly yesterday.

David was one of the foremost thinkers in the party. He contributed much to the debates in this party, often on the pages of this site. And when he sent a piece in, he was always really humble about it. “Might you have time for this?’ he’d say. I mean, his writing was always so thoughtful, relevant and intrinsically liberal.  There was never any way we were going …

Continue reading »
Also posted in News | Tagged | 9 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: End of Empire

By Tom Arms | Sat 21st June 2025 - 10:30 am

Trump’s metaphorical coin-tossing decision-making over the bombing of Iran is the clear result of imperial over-reach cloaked in dangerous isolationism.

But whichever way the president decides, the fact that he has to sit in the Oval Office with a handful of yes men and women underscores the fragility of American foreign policy and the rapid decline of a great power.

Previous post-war presidents could rely on an elaborate and carefully constructed network of alliances, treaties and international laws to help with the decision-making. The decisions were not always right. But if they were wrong the burden of the blame could be shared and recovery was easier.

Trump suffers from hubris – aka excessive pride – has extended that hubris to a significant portion of the American electorate and wrapped it in a cloak of isolationism. This in turn has led to the withdrawal – or threatened withdrawal – from alliances, treaty obligations, and international and domestic law.

In 1987 the British historian Paul Kennedy wrote the seminal geopolitical history “The Rise and Fall of Great Powers.” In it he set down the axiom that great powers decline when their military commitments outstrip their economic base—a process he called “imperial overstretch.”

Before Trump the United States appeared to be set to avoid the Kennedy Trap. For a start the fount of its power was liberal democratic values rather than the naked greed which drove the imperial age. It then concentrated on forming alliances and diplomatic cooperation with the countries – Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada… –  with which it shared those values.

Those countries in return provided military bases and support. MAGA Republicans claim that America’s allies have exploited American goodwill. That is true. But they have also delivered the facilities that have provided America with a global reach which in turn has increased its trading and economic power.

Trump has rejected liberal democratic values and attacked the countries and political leaders that continue to espouse them. He has rejected the rule of law at home and abroad. Trump is a 17th century mercantilist who is governed by the belief that might is right. Billionaires are mighty so they must be right. America is mighty therefore it must be right.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Hina Bokhari

Britain is a tinderbox and our efforts to confront Islamophobia are not good enough

By Hina Bokhari | Fri 20th June 2025 - 12:25 pm

At this week’s Mayor’s Question Time, I asked Sadiq Khan a straightforward but urgent question: why is there still no dedicated Islamophobia training across London’s public institutions?

It’s a question I asked not just as an Assembly Member, but as a Muslim woman who knows what it feels like to live in Britain right now. Recently online, I’ve been told I’m an immigrant who doesn’t belong here. At a street surgery, I was told all Muslims should be killed. At London Bridge station, I was called a Paki and told I should go home.

Islamophobia has been normalised in politics, in the media and in daily life and it now stands at record and alarming levels. Muslims in Britain today live with legitimate fear of being harassed in the street, targeted online, or being viewed with suspicion simply for existing.

And that fear isn’t paranoia. It is rooted in an ugly and worsening reality. The horrific stabbings in Southport last year didn’t just shock the nation—they unleashed something darker. We witnessed terrifying mob violence targeting asylum seekers, Muslims, and anyone perceived as other.

One year on, little has improved. Britain remains a tinderbox. The conditions that led to those outbreaks of hate are not only still here, they are deteriorating by the day. Meanwhile, the silence from much of the political establishment has been deafening.

Worse still, those in power have not helped calm the situation – they’ve inflamed it. When the Prime Minister uses hostile rhetoric about immigrants, it legitimises the very forces that seek to dehumanise entire communities. Meanwhile, GB News and the Reform Party are given free rein to pump conspiracy theories into the mainstream, with barely any challenge.

All of this is happening while many of our public institutions remain fundamentally unequipped to respond. That’s why the absence of Islamophobia training in key London bodies, including the Met Police and the London Fire Brigade, is so dangerous. This isn’t just a symbolic omission, it’s a critical operational failure.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Tony Vickers

Global Capitalist Economics: time to unmask GDP?

By Tony Vickers | Fri 20th June 2025 - 9:52 am

It seems increasingly probable that capitalism must evolve radically. The drift to populism shows that our democracy is failing because our model of market-led economics isn’t achieving what a growing majority of voters want.

It was refreshing to find at Harrogate that this view is now widely shared among Liberal Democrat activists, as shown by the response to “Leading the Way”. ALTER (Action for Land Tax and Economic Reform) summed it up in our response: “The Economy must work for Society, not the reverse”.

None of the other three main UK parties seems to question this. Yet we see no plan from any of them that could conceivably deliver “growth” (read on) that meets even most of the urgent needs of any UK government. Labour seems stuck with Treasury orthodoxy but look what happened when Liz (the lettuce) Truss put neoliberalism into overdrive.

The last time I looked (in 2023), Treasury’s own figures on National Wealth showed that the only element which has grown significantly since the 1990s is land wealth. Considering land value (as opposed to building value) is passive and represents wealth tied up and thus non-productive, it is not surprising that everything useful seems to be deteriorating. An owner of land with actual or potential development (buildings, etc.) on it on most days in the past 40 years has seen their wealth grow more than an average wage-earner, while they do nothing. The “real” economy gains nothing. That land owner is behaving rationally; by following the current dysfunctional economic model, the government isn’t – if it wants Growth!

I’m no economist but history tells us that in an emergency we somehow set aside ‘normal’ economics and find the resources to do what needs doing. Is Treasury – or rather ONS – now starting to do this, with its “Beyond GDP” blog?

Continue reading »
Tagged | 34 Comments
Jack Meredith

Please sir, may I have no war?

By Jack Meredith | Thu 19th June 2025 - 11:31 am

The presidency of Donald Trump has, thus far, been defined by his failure to fulfil his election promise to de-escalate global conflicts.

Most recently, Trump has flirted with the idea of the US entering into the Israel-Iran conflict, commenting, “I may do it, I may not do it” when questioned. To put it simply, this is not the language of de-escalation.

But the next logical question after “Will the US get involved?” can only be “Will it call on the UK to join?”. This decision will come down to Keir Starmer, who will either have the choice of authorising the UK’s involvement or putting the decision to a parliamentary vote, the latter being the route taken by former Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War.

There is, however, a third option: the Wilson approach.

Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson decided to withhold the UK military’s involvement in the Vietnam War, a decision echoed by his successor, Edward Heath. While both provided support through materials and rhetorical encouragement, neither leader engaged directly.

Keir Starmer will likely face this choice in the coming weeks and months. Either he will have the UK join Trump in engaging in war, or he will withhold British military support. It is his moment to show whether Wilson or Blair inspires his leadership.

I hope that he chooses the former, for all our sakes.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 12 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    "why can’t social care and NHS spending be treated as ‘investment’’. Of course, that won't wash”. Vince is technically right. Of course, there is a...
  • Tristan Ward
    @ David Raw "I would strongly advise you to remain healthy and not to grow old." Not for the first time you have misunderstood. I am trying to make the a...
  • Hywel
    Ballsy move using a close-to-the-knuckle knock off of the Fifa logo. Prob be OK, they are usually pretty relaxed about that sort of thing!...
  • 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....