Category Archives: Op-eds

The Pathway to Peace for Israel and Palestine: the West Bank is Critical Too

While the devastation of Gaza dominates the headlines, Israeli settlers have been ramping up  violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and stealing ever more of their land. The illegal settlement project has long been recognised as undermining the viability of a Palestinian state and as an impediment to peace. Lib Dem MPs have rightly spoken out in favour not just of a lasting ceasefire but of a sustainable way out of this crisis for both peoples. But as we try to find a way to a better future, we need to take another look at what is happening in the West Bank right now.

On the night of Saturday 29 March this year, around 140 Israeli soldiers and settlers raided the Masafer Yatta Village of Jinba in the West Bank. Windows were smashed, homes ransacked, and a school and health clinic damaged. This followed an earlier attack in which settlers beat six residents with batons, hospitalising five – including a 15-year-old boy – before soldiers arrived and arrested 22 villagers accused of attacking a settler Shepherd.

Just days earlier, Palestinian film director Hamdan Ballal was attacked by armed settlers in his village, Susya, also in Masafer Yatta. Ballal was surrounded and beaten outside his home, sustaining injuries to his head and stomach. Israeli authorities subsequently arrested Ballal and two other Palestinians, detaining them in a military facility overnight. The attack came mere weeks after Ballal was presented with an Oscar for his film ‘No Other Land,’ a documentary depicting just such state-backed settler violence.

These attacks are not isolated incidents, nor the actions of ‘bad apples’. They are part of an entrenched strategy to dispossess, displace and oppress Palestinian communities and, in so doing, accelerate Israeli settlement expansion across the illegally occupied West Bank. Since 1967, over 700,000 Israelis have transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced through a combination of discriminatory policies and military and settler violence. Home demolitions, movement restrictions, land confiscation and punitive residency revocations all function within a system Amnesty carefully but justifiably characterises as apartheid. Violence, harassment, land theft and destruction of property by settlers – often carried out with support and assistance from Israeli authorities – adds to the pressure.

Tagged , and | 9 Comments

Yes, Liberals can and should be proud to be British

I feel compelled to begin this article with a confession of jealousy. Since joining the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I’ve met many wonderful people who can say that they are lifelong liberals. I always wince with envy when I hear it.

As I’ve told those who have asked, I was a member of the Scottish Conservatives for some years, including a brief stint working in their press office in Holyrood. I’m not ashamed of that per se, and nobody in the party has even hinted that I should be, but facts are facts.

Especially given the right-ward march of the Scottish Tories in recent years, I remain one of our most repentant sinners, comforted by the fact that the Tories left me every bit as much as I left them.

If I cannot carry the card of the from the cradle liberal, I can at least offer to be of use. With the foothills of the 2026 Holyrood elections in view, many liberal-adjacent Tories will be looking for a new home, one that combines fiscal responsibility with their open, tolerant, pre-Boris social views.

For an excellent rendition of this point, I highly recommend watching the speech our new MSP, Jamie Greene, gave at our conference in Inverness. Jamie spoke with candour, grace, humour, and clarity on this subject. He has walked the walk and very much has the talk to go with it.

Those expecting this article to be a shopping list of things that Liberal Democrats should abandon will be disappointed. Instead, I mean to encourage something that is going very well, especially with disillusioned Tory voters in mind. Our appeal to patriotism.

There is much to like so far. Ed Davey has been leading the effort, encouraging us to buy British goods where possible and taking a strong line on Russian aggression and the destructive nature of the Trump administration’s disastrous, miserly, and self-defeating tariffs.

Tagged | 8 Comments

My journey from Socialism to Liberalism

Embed from Getty Images
I have always been fascinated with politics and how the world works. Our history, our present and our future. How we co-exist in society. Being a young idealist, I first felt that the answers to the issues that we faced were through Socialism. I remember seeing Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the leadership of the Labour Party, a weary looking man who somehow was able to connect to people of different generations and backgrounds. I was inspired. I joined the Labour Party in 2016, hoping for a better future.

Looking back at that time, I did see the world through a one-dimensional lens. Rich versus poor, the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat. Back then, when asked on how to solve the issues of the day, I would always resort to “just raise taxes on the rich”. It was the magical answer I had to any issue on the economy, never looking at the potential consequences that major tax rises could have to both businesses and workers.

Tagged and | 21 Comments

Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue: AI art and Neo-Fascism

For being such keen environmentalists and anti-fascists, the Lib Dems need to be far more critical of generative AI than we currently are. But as opposed to talking about the obvious and well-known environmental damage that AI causes, I’d like to focus on the much less talked about the latter: AI art as the contemporary fascist aesthetic.

This should be glaringly apparent if we just take a short look at the people who are pro-AI art: from Trump and his administration using Ghibli-style AI images to publicise their illegal and inhumane deportations, to Elon Musk generating a drawing of …

Tagged and | 5 Comments

Mark Pack writes: The biggest prize in May’s local elections

Lib Dems in sunshine with Mike Ross, Mark Pack and Shaffaq MohammedThere are hundreds of important prizes at stake for us in the May local elections.

Wards where we are standing our first candidate in years. Wards where winning would give us our first breakthrough in an area. Wards where winning would make us the main opposition on the council. Wards where winning could give us leadership of the council for the first time. Wards where winning would cement our record in power locally.

But perhaps the biggest prize at stake for the Liberal Democrats is one that has never been on offer before: the new Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor.

It brings together two areas with impressive local Liberal Democrat teams: the Hull team that took power from Labour even while the Conservatives were in power in Downing Street, and the East Riding team that has ridden an impressive run of by-election wins to be a growing political force locally.

There is important political power at stake to improve the lives of residents in the area.

For the party more widely too there is the chance to show our relevance in northern England, to get a new Liberal Democrat in important local and regional media markets and to show how we can win against Labour.

Tagged , , and | 3 Comments

Welcome to my day: 14 April 2025 – wouldn’t a bit of boredom and a nice cup of tea hit the spot right now?

As you see this, gentle reader, I’ll be back in the United Kingdom, but, as I write this, I’m on a Eurostar heading back after a week of looking out of train windows, eating local food, drinking local beers and wines, and admiring the architecture (or not, in the case of Wiener Neustadt) of a variety of European towns and cities. It has been reassuringly relaxing, if not exactly dull.

But beyond the cocoon of a train, the world has been a tempestuous place, with on again, off again tariffs, all sorts of previously unthinkable actions, and a sense that, perhaps, putting someone in charge of the world’s largest economy who is, let’s put it politely, somewhat mercurial, may not be entirely the best strategy. It is a reminder that solid competence, whilst not likely to inspire campaigners, might actually have long-term benefits.

One of the criticisms of the European Union was the glacial speed of its decision making. Yet it was almost entirely predictable, because when you have to achieve unanimity or, at least, rather more than a simple plurality, the deal making is easy to assess. And business, and the markets generally, like that. The alternative, as is being demonstrated currently, is not quite as popular (unless you have an inside track…). Predictability also has its advantages when it comes to things like the law and how it is applied, as it really does help in agreeing contracts if you know that they can be enforced if necessary.

2 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

Republican Senators and Congressmen must be terrified of losing their jobs. And if they do go, they can only blame the man who helped put them in office— Donald Trump.

Before the economic meltdown, the Republican legislators were facing town hall meetings filled with constituents angry about Elon Musk’s chain saw approach to government, cuts in foreign aid, deportations of students and attacks on the constitution and the courts.

Almost to a man (or woman) they faced the crowds with a Trumpian smile that tried to reassure the voters that the president knew what he was doing and that he was going to “Make America Great Again”.

They had to say that because Trump and his billionaire acolyte Elon Musk held the campaign purse strings. The president has even managed to install his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as chairman of the Republican National Committee which vets candidates and channels party funds.

If a Republican candidate failed to pay obeisance to the MAGA leader and his policies then the next time they came up for re-election, Musk or another one of Trump’s billionaire friends, would finance their opponent in the primary elections for the nomination. In American politics, money talks.

Or does it? Elon Musk spent a record $25 million backing the Republican candidate in the race for a seat on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. The Democrat candidate, Susan Crawford, won it by ten points. The electorate balked at being told what to do by an American oligarch who was working with Donald Trump to destroy the American government and its constitution.

What happened in Wisconsin could easily be a harbinger of political battles across America, especially now that economic chaos has set in. Inflation is rising despite Trump’s promises to bring it down. Most people don’t believe his promise to protect Medicaid and Medicare. Their pensions are sliding along with the stock market. And they don’t like the rest of the world hating them.

They voted for change. But not for the ill-planned unbridled change wrought by Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants in Congress and the cabinet.

There is an excellent chance of the Democrats winning both houses in the mid-term elections. They may even win a two-thirds majority in the Senate which will give them enough seats to impeach—and convict—Donald Trump for abuse of power.

But the mid-terms are two years away and Donald Trump has proven that he can wreak untold damage on America—and the world—in under 100 days.

Some Republican congressmen have spoken out against the president. Not enough. Many more have whispered their opposition in private but backed him when the cameras turned on them. If they can be persuaded by their town halls that their futures are damaged by association with Trump and assured by opposition to him than perhaps—just perhaps—Congress can grow a backbone.

Iran

The Iranians must be terrified of Trump. That can be the only reason they have agreed to meet in Oman this weekend to discuss swapping potential nuclear weapons for peace.

The reasons are clear. Tehran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza have been decimated. They have lost their string of bases in Syria and the Iranian-backed Houthis are suffering.

But most important of all, success has set Benjamin Netanyahu’s war-driven pulse racing. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah is not enough for the Israeli prime minister. He wants to go after what he calls “the head of the snake”—Iran.

President Biden worked hard to keep a tight rein on Netanyahu’s blood lust, both in Gaza and Lebanon and towards Iran.

Trump appears willing to unleash him, maybe even with American help. He has proposed taking over Gaza, moving out the Palestinians and turning the area into a Middle Eastern Riviera. And as Netanyahu has increased his attacks in Gaza and the West Bank Trump has said nothing other than though to tell Hamas that “all Hell will break loose” if Hamas fails to release remaining Israeli hostages.

12 Comments

Wera Hobhouse refused entry to Hong Kong to see new grandson

I remember the anticipation of going to meet my first niece when she was born during Lib Dem conference at Harrogate. At least I only had a 4 hour train ride in the same country to take to meet this beautiful new person. And nobody to stand in the way of me meeting her.

I can only imagine how our Wera Hobhouse must be feeling. She and her husband William went to Hong Kong on Thursday to meet their baby grandson for the first time and the Chinese authorities simply would not let her in. Even more cruelly they decided that they would admit William. However, they both flew back and have been talking to the Times (£)  about their ordeal, which included several hours of interrogation by immigration officials.

Hobhouse has never visited Hong Kong and had been excited about spending time with her son’s family, having seen them only a handful of times in recent years. “My son was waiting at the other end at arrivals,” she said. “I couldn’t even see him and give him a hug and I hadn’t seen him in a year. When I was given the decision my voice was shaking and I was just saying: ‘Why, please explain to me?’ They never gave me an explanation. That was so cruel.

“I just said: ‘I want to see my grandson, I want to cuddle him. He was born three months ago, what is the problem?’ I am obviously devastated. I was obviously looking forward to holding and cuddling him and … establishing a relationship. They are obviously quite a long way away, so each month you lose is a bit of a loss for the relationship I will have with my grandson. Having to fly back, it was so hard. I didn’t cry but I was very close to tears.”

Ed Davey has written to David Lammy to ask him to complain about Wera’s treatment:

Tagged , , , , and | 2 Comments

Observations of an Expat: It’s War

Trump has declared war on China. It’s a trade war, not a shooting war. But the fallout will still be devastating and it will reach every corner of the globe.

The markets rallied on the news that Trump had blinked. He had reduced everyone’s tariffs to a blanket 10 percent—plus 25 percent for cars, aluminium and steel—except China.

Then tariffs on Chinese goods went up. China retaliated. They went up again. As of this writing tariffs on China stand at 145 percent. And Chinese tariffs on US goods are at 84 percent.

That effectively means that the world’s two biggest economies, who between them control 49 percent of global trade, have locked themselves out of each other’s markets. American farmers who rely on China for their sales will be left with crops rotting in the fields. And American shops that sell everything from t-shirts to I-phones will be left with the choice of either empty shelves or more than doubling their prices.

Trump promised to bring inflation down. It will go up. So will interest rates as the Federal Reserve Bank tries to control spiralling prices. Which means that mortgages and business loans will rise. As business costs rise so will unemployment.

These problems will extend far beyond American shores. There is more than a grain of truth in the saying “when American sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold.”

But there is more. If America can’t sell to China and China can’t sell to America then where will all the soybeans, wheat, steel, cars, computers… go. The answer is Europe, the UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and India. This means that those countries goods will have to compete against Chinese and American businesses forced to dump their surplus output on third country markets. And, of course, all those countries will have to pay tariffs to export to America.

And there is more. Trump claims that the tariffs will increase foreign investment in America. Companies, he says, will build factories in the US in order to avoid US tariffs and sell to Americans. But will they? Most major businesses these days think in global not national terms. America is sealing its market off from the rest of the world and, anyway, it is quite likely to be in recession. Finally, foreign businesses crave economic stability. Trump’s up, down, in, out, unhinged shoot-from-the-hip economic policies are creating chaos rather than stability.

Perhaps most worrying of all, is the bond market. Bonds are effectively loans. US Treasury bonds are loans made to the US government to finance America’s trade deficit. At the beginning of the month America’s foreign debt stood at $7.9 trillion. Half of the debt is held by governments. Japan, China and Britain being the top three.

Tagged , and | 15 Comments

Are we Trumpers now? Why our “Buy British” message sends the wrong signal

As a committed Liberal Democrat, I was disappointed by our recent “Buy British” video. It sends the wrong message about who we are—and worse, it risks alienating the very voters we need to attract.

In this article, I want to explain why the video undermines our liberal values, explore the political motivations I fear may lie behind it, and argue that it hurts us more than it helps.

Animal welfare or economic nationalism?

Our last manifesto mentions animal welfare five times. It promises an Animal Welfare Bill, a ban on selling animal products produced to lower standards than those allowed in the UK, and a commitment to meet or exceed the EU’s stricter rules on antibiotics in farming.

But what are these policies really for? Are they motivated by genuine concern for animal suffering—or are they more about shielding UK farmers from cheaper competition abroad?

When Ed Davey encourages people to “buy British” even when it means buying factory-farmed meat, it starts to feel like the latter. So who are we making policy for? The country as a whole—or the older rural communities that currently vote for us?

Environmentalism isn’t about borders

Look at our stated values. Under the “Liberal Democrat Values” section of our website, we call ourselves environmentalists. We commit to “environmentally sustainable means of production and consumption.”

But when it comes to food, it’s what we eat — not where it was made — that has the biggest environmental impact. Our World in Data makes this point clearly.

I’m not saying we should tell people they have to be vegan. But if we’re going to start recommending foods, those recommendations should align with our environmental values. Otherwise, we risk appearing tone-deaf — especially to younger environmentalist members and voters.

Are we serious about tackling climate change and inspiring the next generation, or are we focused on keeping favour with older, rural voters? It’s a fair question — one that also applies to the debate around the so-called “family farm tax.”

A proudly internationalist party — so why the protectionist message?

Here’s another quote from our values statement:

“Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists. We believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward-looking.”

Why, then, are we adopting the anti-globalist, Trump-style rhetoric of the “Buy British” campaign?

39 Comments

Why I’m a liberal, through the lens of the Oxford Labour Club

Being an absolute lover of politics, I often fill my term-time Saturday evenings with attendance at the University of Oxford’s Labour Club’s social ‘Beer and Bickering’. This is a social event which features three motions on various pressing political topics, decreasing in seriousness throughout the night. One fantastic feature of this event is that continually reminds me why I’m a liberal – and why liberalism matters.

Part of the reason I attend is that I love being one of the few people who breaks up the total consensus of opinion on most topics. Motions have included ‘this house would introduce a maximum wage’ – which demonstrated an incredible misunderstanding of who actually makes up the bulk of the British state’s tax revenue – and the one which inspired this article, ‘this house would ban private healthcare.’

The debate went about exactly how you’d expect a bunch of left wing 19-year-olds to discuss private healthcare. The general sentiment was that it was a total moral outrage that certain people could pay to access care. I note that this was often separate from practical arguments about capacity, with the overriding consensus being that even if it had no impact on the ability of the ordinary working person to access healthcare, it was still wrong that someone should be able to pay for a different service.

The room was not, I fear, turned by my rousing case for individual choice and liberty. It was turned, however, by a member of their committee reminding those present that under the current system access to certain aspects of trans healthcare are only available privately, and not on the NHS. How can we ban private healthcare, the argument went, if it would cause suffering to these individuals who the government won’t provide for?

Tagged | 17 Comments

Jamie Greene on joining the Lib Dems

Unfortunately, I had to miss Friday at Scottish Conference for family reasons.

As I arrived in Inverness in the afternoon, my phone started going wild and I realised that Jamie Greene MSP had joined us. His arrival brings our MSPs to five and means that we can now be an official group in the Parliament. This will give us more committee places and speaking time. Willie Rennie will be joining the Corporate Body as our official business manager.

Watch that moment here. Alex Cole-Hamilton introduced him and clearly enjoyed himself doing so.

The most exciting day at Conference in ages and I’m not there. I was very happy to have Jamie in the party, but had major FOMO.

However, I did get to meet him at the dinner that evening. Alistair Carmichael took him round all the tables, telling him that I was  “mad, bad and dangerous to know.” Jamie said he was already aware of Lib Dem Voice and said he would write for us.

Tagged , and | 1 Comment

The hidden cost of Local Government Reorganisation

This May, thousands of voters like me face a democratic void – our voices silenced as local elections are suspended under the convenient guise of “fast-track devolution” and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). While Labour and Conservative local councillors rushed to chase this programme in pursuit of the “sunlit uplands” of devolution and LGR, the truth is far more troubling. Both parties appear all too willing to dodge voter scrutiny, with the government eagerly agreeing to cancel elections in Hampshire for at least a year at their request. The result? County councillors continuing to wield power without a mandate from May onwards.

Over recent months, I’ve investigated how LGR truly affects women’s representation and political diversity. I’m about to share my findings with Elect Her and the Fawcett Society – non-partisan organisations campaigning against gender inequality in our politics. The recent Lib Dem Voice article examining LGR’s impact on younger candidates struck a chord with me, compelling me to speak out and expand on these urgent concerns.

From my investigation into the councils highlighted by the government as LGR “success stories”, it confirms what many of us have suspected: women’s representation in local government – already in a deeply troubling state – will regress under LGR. Political diversity suffers a similar fate, with smaller parties, including Liberal Democrats, bearing a disproportionate burden of this democratic retreat. The broken two-party system strikes again!

Tagged , and | 17 Comments

Why are we not leaning into our radical side?

In recent months, a direction of travel has emerged for the party. One might expect that faced with a right-leaning, technocratic Labour party that’s disappointing in government, we Lib Dems would lean into our radical side, channelling Kennedy in a full-throated stand for our values to outflank Labour, if not wholly to the left, then certainly on a more radical side.

That is not what has been happening – if anything we remain more fixated on last year’s battles against the Conservatives. Flashes of radicalism are visible in our opposition to Trump and Farage, and standing up for communities. But in recent months we have also seen signs that the appetite for being the party of Kennedy is not there, despite the widening gap there in British politics.

For instance, the ‘Buy British, back Britain’ line coming out of HQ sits uncomfortably with both our values and our – in my opinion, much better – messaging about supporting our allies. As Liberals, we should not be joining the throngs manning the battlements and pulling up the drawbridges, instead being consistent in reminding everyone of the value of a community of nations working together. We’re doing that already with our robust rhetoric about aligning strongly with our European and Commonwealth allies – our messaging about whose products we buy should echo that. ‘Buy local, buy liberal’ would allow us to champion our own producers as well as goods from nations that uphold our values.

Tagged | 18 Comments

Is this a Liberal moment?

Can the election of Donald Trump be a major opportunity for Liberal Democrats? Quite possibly, though the jury is still out. In fact I’ve just written a short history of British Liberalism which ends with that question.

I’ve argued in the book that British Liberalism has made the political weather when it has mobilised public opinion in favour of a political reset, or against a particular threat. Liberals have campaigned best when they have attacked powerful vested interests and damaging concentrations of power – when they have urged constitutional reform (the nineteenth-century Reform Acts) or stood against tariffs and sectional economic policies (the Corn Laws; Tariff Reform). But it’s not always easy to convince voters that constitutional and structural issues should matter to them. Timing is always central to political success.

In the nineteenth century, Liberals’ favourite slogan was ‘Reform’, which was shorthand for changes to the distribution of parliamentary seats and to the franchise. Reform was demanded for several reasons, particularly to stop high taxes and government oppression of minorities. It was a call for a new, more responsive politics.

Tagged | 15 Comments

Selecting and not selecting people

As I never tire of telling people, I’ve been in the Party all of my adult life, having joined, as a teenager, the Scottish Liberal Party (Livingston Constituency Liberal Association, to be exact, for that is how we did things back then) in the febrile months between the 1987 General Election and eventual merger and the creation of the Liberal Democrats.

I have stood under the Party banner in student elections (I once stood for Glasgow University SRC President against a certain Nicola Sturgeon – whatever happened to her? – we both lost!). However, I have never been a candidate in a proper election – not even in a euphemistically described “development” seat. So I don’t really know what it’s like to offer yourself for selection.

In Scotland (as in Wales) we are working hard to select first rate candidates for a General Election due next year. That’s got me thinking about what it means to seek to be a candidate – but, don’t worry, this is not a reflection on the rights and wrongs of motion F10 at the recent Federal Spring Conference in Harrogate or the diplomatic (or otherwise) skills of Tim Farron.

Tagged | 3 Comments

Further thoughts on Parliamentary Candidates’ debates: thinking beyond First Past the Post

In a previous article, We Need Election Debates for a Parliamentary Democracy, I wrote about the current deficiencies in our broadcasted election debates, a recent innovation in British politics given their debut in 2010.

In short, I wrote about how First Past the Post has resulted in a failure to scrutinise the vast majority of parliamentary candidates, with candidates able to actively avoid limited public forums and tempted into committed egregious behaviour when in office that erodes public faith in politics. This in turn has resulted in election debates misrepresenting general elections as quasi-presidential elections for a Prime Minister, especially by the head-to-head debates between the Conservative and Labour leaders which serve to reinforce their artificial duopoly.

Tagged | 2 Comments

Welcome to my day: 7 April 2025 – a reminder of what freedom really means…

And before I start, yes, this really is me this week. Last week’s article was something of a play on the Liberal Democrat Voice April Fool, although even my colleagues thought that it was credible. Perhaps I should be troubled by that…

Greetings from the Czech Republic, where I’m off interrailing. And yes, most of this week will be on trains, but I get to enjoy the scenery and allow my mind to wander a bit.

One of the great things about the past forty years is the impact of increased freedom. Freedom to travel, freedom to trade with minimal barriers. Both of these things have enhanced our lives, whether we always realise it or not. From the emergence of European supermarket chains, driving price competition, to the ability to travel randomly across Europe by train without, for the most part, passport checks or varying currencies, all of the benefits of a large free trade zone have made things better for many of us. And, given that Elon Musk apparently agrees on the benefits of free trade zones, it seems to me that support for the concept is pretty widespread.

Tagged , and | 16 Comments

Bullied bullies and the New World Order

It is a common trait of bullies that they resort to self-pity; claiming to have been bullied themselves. Yet such psychopathology is found not only in the school playground but in the affairs of nations.

Putin’s narrative justifying the invasion of a peaceful neighbour and attendant war crimes draws heavily on a history of post-Soviet Russia being taken advantage of by the West. When China behaves badly it is apt to invoke its own ‘century of humiliation’. The rulers of a newly confident India hark back to past conquests by Muslim invaders to justify persecuting religious minorities. The Balkans and the Middle East continue to suffer the trauma of bullied bullies who excuse themselves in appeals to their own past suffering.

But the USA? Taken advantage of by the world? Exploited and abused by cheaters; scavengers; plunderers; pillagers; rapists. Really? Trump is a smart politician and seems to have found in the MAGA crowd a deep vein of self-pity for all the unfairness heaped on America: ungrateful. free-riding Europeans; devious Asians who have stolen America’s industry; invading Latinos; even, the dastardly Canadians. 

Many countries nurse a mixture of pride and guilt about their history, and their identity. The former colonial powers, like the UK, have had to accept being thrown out of their colonies. Germany and Japan had to come to terms with comprehensive defeat. For sure, the USA has had to come to terms with the genocide of its native inhabitants and slavery. But it can also boast vast achievements: winner of the Cold War; a widely admired ‘shining city on the hill’; creator of the institutions and rules which led to 70 odd years of remarkable global progress; and, still, the undisputed economic and technological leader of the Western world. So why is the Trump bully boy so sorry for himself? 

One grievance is partly justified but has nothing to do with the trade war which Trump has unleashed:  the long-standing failure of America’s European and Asian allies to pay their share of common defence.  After all, the USA has taken on the risk of nuclear incineration which could conceivably be triggered by some miscalculation or mischief made by Europeans in the Baltic or the Balkans.  Trump is right to insist that if Europeans won’t pay up, they can’t expect continued protection.  But, typically ungracious, he fails to acknowledge that British, Danish, Dutch and other Europeans have given their lives supporting the Americans in their questionable wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tagged , , , , and | 5 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

France

France’s Marine Le Pen has been hoisted upon her own petard. At the National Rally’s annual convention in 2015 she stood at the podium and declared that any politician found guilty of a crime should be barred from office.

Of course, she wasn’t talking about herself. She was referring to the long parade of French political leaders who had fallen foul of the law and been convicted of everything from incitement to hate crimes to pimping to old-fashioned corruption. They included her own father (Jean-Marie Le Pen) and two French presidents (Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy).

Most of them got off fairly lightly, heavy fines and mostly suspended sentences. Only one senior French politician in recent memory has been barred from office—former prime minister Alain Juppe who in 2004 was found guilty of an almost identical crime as the one committed by Ms Le Pen: misusing public funds for political purposes.

In the case of Ms Le Pen and her 24 co-defendants in the National Rally, they were found guilty of taking $4,412,000 earmarked for European Parliamentary business and using the money to pay people working for National Rally. Ms Le Pen was responsible for $520,000 of the money.

The parallels with the legal travails of Donald Trump are obvious. But the American courts took the position that they should go easy on him because he was on the cusp of becoming president. Ms Le Pen is also leading the polls. But the French judges have argued the opposite to their American counterparts.

They judged that because Ms Le Pen was a leading candidate for the presidency of France she should receive a harsher sentence. To do otherwise, argued the court, “would cause a major disruption to democratic public order.”

Ms Le Pen and Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Giorgia Meloni, Viktor Orban and just under half of French voters think that the sentence is unacceptable interference by the courts in the political process. Everyone else thinks that it is important that the law be upheld—a law which Ms Le Pen herself supported.

Canada

It’s called the “Trump Factor” in Canada and it is defined as the out-sized impact that the American president is having on the Canadian elections scheduled for 28 April.

The focus of Canadians is not surprising as Trump has taken it upon himself to threaten Canadian sovereignty by calling for it to become the 51st state and is about to slap tariffs on Canada which will destroy the country’s economy and tens of thousands of jobs.

Which brings us to Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Polievre who has been referred to as “Trump light.” He favours private enterprise; wants some immigration controls; is an anti-vaxxer; is so-so on the issue of climate change; has promised the biggest crackdown on crime in Canadian history; and is seriously anti-woke.

Back in January—before Trump launched his anti-Canadian crusade—Polievre’s policies were enough to put him an apparent shoe-in for the premiership as his party polled 25 points ahead of the governing Liberals.

As of this week, the Liberals are 25 points ahead of Polievre’s conservatives.

The complete reversal is partly down to the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. After nine years in office, the pretty boy of Canadian politics, had run out of steam and was deeply unpopular.

He was replaced by technocrat Mark Carney whose impressive cv includes stints as the governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. Carney then played the card that was the second, bigger reason for the reversal in political fortunes—the Canadian public’s growing hatred of Donald Trump.

Carney has broken with diplomatic convention and refused make his first visit to Washington. Instead he flew to London and Paris. He has been adamant that Canada will never be part of the United States. He will retaliate against any Trumpian tariffs and work to reorganise Canada’s trading patterns away from America. “Our relationship with America will never be the same,” Carney declared.

He doesn’t need any policies other than being firmly anti-Trump.

Tagged , , , , , , and | 18 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Boycott!

It’s time to boycott American goods and services. Buy British. Buy European. Buy Chinese. Buy anything except American.

Non-Americans hit by Trumpian tariffs cannot influence American politics through the ballot box. But they can vote with their pocket books. And a point-blank refusal to buy American products would have more of an impact than retaliatory tariffs that make those products more expensive.

Individuals are already turning their backs on American merchandise.  Last month Europeans registered their displeasure with Donald Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk by cutting Tesla sales by 50 percent. Others have shown their disapproval by refusing to buy Coca-Cola or taking their coffee breaks at Café Nero instead of Starbucks.

But these are haphazard kneejerk boycotts which may give the individual a momentary self-righteous glow. They will have little if any effect on the Washington policymakers. What is needed is a coordinated effort that organises pickets, produces literature and stuffs it through letter products. A well-oiled machine with foot soldiers, a PR team and a website that identifies products and services to boycott and names non-American alternatives and goes on to monitor success.

A boycott would also help the re-ordering of trade patterns away from the United States. If people are not buying American goods than they are buying goods from other countries. The businesses in those countries will quickly realise the opportunity and divert their supply lines accordingly

The government can’t do the job of organising a boycott. Not because it is incapable of the task but because it would be politically irresponsible. A successful government-organised boycott would almost certainly result in retribution from the ever-mercurial Trump. It would be in character for Trump to retaliate with restrictions in vital areas such as intelligence gathering or weapons procurement.

No, what is needed is an existing political machine that has significant representation in parliament but is separate from the government. There is no time to re-invent the wheel.   The public requires an existing political party whose leader has already firmly staked out a firm anti-Trumpian position and called for a coordinated response to tariffs and other unacceptable behaviour by the current tenant of the White House.

What is needed is for Britain’s Liberal Democrats—led by Sir Ed Davey—to organise a proper boycott of American products. The government can’t do it. The Tories won’t do it. That leaves the Liberal Democrats – with a leader committed to doing something—with the opportunity and the responsibility.

Tagged , , and | 30 Comments

Trump has set out his tariffs – the UK should respond robustly

So Donald Trump did exactly what he said he was going to do, and put tariffs on imports from all of America’s biggest trading partners. At time of writing, Keir Starmer has acknowledged there will be an impact on the UK economy, but has yet to say how he intends to respond beyond promising to “keep a cool head”. On top of the 25% tariffs on British steel and cars, there is now an additional 10% ‘everything else’ tariff, which interestingly is less than the 20% applied to EU exporters. While this may reflect the lower trade imbalance that the UK enjoys with the US compared to the EU, it is just as likely to be intended as some performative favouritism designed to drive a wedge between the UK and EU.

So how should the UK respond? It’s true that ultimately nobody wins a trade war, and mutual economic damage is always inflicted until a truce is negotiated.  Does this mean that maybe we should just suck it up, avoid any retaliation, and hope that we can dodge the worst of the harm until a new US administration arrives? Or should we respond robustly and hit back with significant tariffs of our own on the US, and risk provoking “retaliatory-retaliation”? Despite the inherent risks I suggest the latter, for three reasons.

Firstly, we know Trump doesn’t respect weakness, and a failure to respond will be seen as weakness by his administration. If you hand over your lunch money to the school bully with no resistance, what’s to stop him coming for your pocket money too?

Secondly, Trump is a very transactional negotiator who seeks maximum advantage with zero interest in right and wrong. Subsequent negotiations will start from the ‘facts on the ground’ at that point in time. Without applying retaliatory tariffs of our own, the question then becomes what does the Government offer to give away in exchange for tariff relief?  Scrap the digital services tax? Allow imports of US chlorine-washed chicken and hormone fed beef? At least if we apply tariffs of our own, first thing on the table is mutual reductions in tariffs before we give anything else away.

Finally, if we apply retaliatory tariffs it will affect US companies that export to the UK. Some of those are large corporations with armies of lobbyists in Washington, and many are political donors. We need those lobbyists and donors pressuring the Trump administration to negotiate tariff reductions, as they have far more influence on a cash-hungry campaigner like Trump than we can hope for.

Tagged and | 26 Comments

It’s time to buy British – and mean It

President Trump’s new tariffs on British exports aren’t just a bump in the road they’re a direct threat to our economic independence. The Office for Budget Responsibility says they could knock a full percentage point off our GDP by 2026–27. That’s not abstract. That’s real people losing jobs. Real businesses, especially in places like the North East, struggling to survive.

We can’t afford to shrug this off. If we’ve learned anything from recent years, it’s that we need to be more self-reliant, more rooted, and far less dependent on volatile international partners. That starts with something simple: choosing to buy British, not as a token gesture, but as a conscious act of resilience and solidarity.

Backing our own

We’ve got world-class small businesses across the UK, family shops, independent bookshops, local food producers, run by people who care deeply about what they do and the communities they serve. They already make up over 60% of private sector employment. Every time we choose them over a multinational, we’re doing more than supporting a local business, we’re helping keep our high streets alive, our communities stable, and our economy balanced.

For too long, our towns have been hollowed out by the same big chains, offering the same tired products. The money we spend there often disappears offshore. But when we choose local, we keep that money circulating in our economy. We create jobs, nurture pride, and get something better in return, better service, better quality, and a genuine sense of connection. That’s how we build strong communities, not just strong economies.

Real leadership, real partnerships

This isn’t just about reacting to Trump’s policies. It’s about shifting our whole approach. When Ed Davey praised the Prime Minister for backing a military coalition to defend Ukraine, he was absolutely right, but he also called for the same level of ambition to build an economic coalition to push back against protectionism. We need to lead with ideas, with partnerships, with action.

Tagged | 21 Comments

William Wallace writes..British Politics in a national and global emergency

Martin Wolf, as so often, had it right in the Financial Times the other week.  He argued that in the multi-headed crisis we now face, the proper response of government is to tell the voters that this is both a national and a global emergency and that national economic and fiscal policies will have to take these exceptional circumstances into account.  The impact of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy could plunge us all into a deep recession.

Labour knew when they came into office that Russia’s attack on Ukraine had raised difficult questions about replacing stocks of equipment and munitions and increasing Britain’s defence capabilities.  They also had a good idea of how far the Conservatives in office had run down public investment and juggled financial figures to avoid recognising that state revenues did not match public spending needs.  It seems however that full realisation of the depth of the investment and income deficit only came when they were in office, well after they had boxed themselves in by promising not to raise any of the three main sources of taxable revenue.  And they had not predicted the third shock, which has hit them six months after taking office: the impact of Trump’s second presidency on the global economy, on transatlantic relations and on the conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. 

These three crises together have undermined Labour’s growth strategy, and are likely to force it to choose unwillingly both further spending cuts and higher taxes.  Yet here, as elsewhere, Labour remains timid and uncertain in making hard choices, let alone in persuading the public to accept them.  Opinion polls show that most voters don’t yet support increased spending on defence, because they don’t yet see the Russian attack on Ukraine as directly threatening Britain.  Most aren’t happy about cuts in welfare, but are content for overseas aid and other budgets to be squeezed to provide some of the funds needed rather than higher taxation.  

Tagged , , , and | 9 Comments

We can win in Hull and East Yorkshire. But only with your help 

Lib Dems in sunshine with Mike Ross, Mark Pack and Shaffaq Mohammed

If you were at our recent Spring conference, you will hopefully have heard all about my campaign to become the first Mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire. 

Last weekend, we were joined by Party President Mark Pack in Hessle, East Yorkshire, to formally launch our campaign for the mayoralty. 

It was an honour to be joined by Lord Pack and by so many activists, both from across the region and further afield, such as Lord Shaffaq Mohammed and a team from Sheffield. We’ve also had a visit from Ed Davey and many front-bench MPs. 

It’s clear the momentum is with us here, and it’s clear that local people want to send the Labour Government a message on 1st May. 

But we must not be complacent. The region is vast, comprising the city of Hull with the mostly rural East Riding, which spans almost 2,500 square kilometres, with hundreds of thousands of people registered to speak to. We must deliver to and speak with as many people as possible, as many times as possible, between now and 1st May. 

Tagged , , , , and | Leave a comment

Liberals and socialists – a response

Last week, I came across an article by Chris Whiting on Lib Dem Voice, which you can read here. Chris makes a compelling case for why liberals and socialists should collaborate, and I highly recommend it. Nevertheless, I would like to offer an alternative perspective.

I want to focus on a line from Chris’s article in which he states, “If you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism.” I disagree. Socialism aims to establish a society where private property has been abolished, and the working class owns the means of production. In contrast, liberalism places less emphasis on who owns the means of production and more on issues such as freedom of speech, liberal democracy, freedom of the press, and, most notably, freedom of enterprise.

While socialism is primarily an economic theory, liberalism emphasises individual freedom. Both socialism and liberalism support economic freedom as one of the most critical forms. However, while socialism focuses intently on this area, liberalism views it as merely one aspect of a broader framework.

Another specific issue when rereading this line is the established history of liberalism and socialism. Although I was born in the UK, my cousin’s family is of Polish descent. My cousin’s family were hunted down and executed on Joseph Stalin’s orders. Those who managed to escape fled to the UK and made new lives for themselves. Those who did not were taken into a forest, shot in the back of the head, and buried in a mass grave in a series of mass executions now more commonly known as The Katyn Massacre.

Stalin’s theories, particularly “Socialism in One Country,” came at a significant cost: mass deportations, state-sanctioned murder, and the complete dismantling of civil society. One might argue, “But this is merely an extreme example.” In response, I urge you to consider China, North Korea, Vietnam, or Cuba. To uphold socialism, these nations abolished liberal democracy, committed crimes against humanity, and ignored any semblance of freedom. Where socialism has emerged as the dominant ideology, bloodshed has followed.

Tagged and | 24 Comments

LDV and AI – a new venture

Last week, Conference in Harrogate passed a wide ranging science and technology paper, Victoria Collins MP contrasted our approach with that of Labour and Conservatives.

Liberal Democrats take a different approach, one grounded in our values of internationalism, respect for individual rights, and challenging concentrations of power.

One issue the policy paper looked at was how we should deal with AI.

In accordance with those values, our new policy calls for us to develop a legally binding code of ethics and a “Lovelace Oath” which would be similar to the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors.

Recently an author friend of mine posted on social media that the Meta AI had uploaded four of her novels to train its AI. I observed at the time that this seemed more like stealing than training. Our new policy says that we need to

Strengthen rules around copyright so that creators are treated fairly, with record keeping duties and robust, independent auditing of data and content use for AI developers.

In the run-up to the debate in Harrogate, the LDV team mused amongst ourselves about how we could best utilise AI. Running this site takes a phenomenal amount of effort and we decided to harness the potential of this new technology.

To that end, with help of the boffins at the Lib Dem Coders Group, we developed our own AI tool, Packed, which we trained by feeding it:

  • our entire archive
  • all the comments left on the site
  • all the emails LDV has ever received and the replies from the team
  • all the speeches ever made by parliamentarians
  • all policy papers passed since 1988
  • the constitutions of the Federal, Scottish, English and Welsh parties with all amendments since 1988

Someone observed that this was very close to the knowledge of the Party President, hence how our tool got its name.

Also posted in Site news | Tagged and | 10 Comments

Is the tax system shafting Gen Z and Millennials?

The tax system in the UK exacerbates age inequality and puts an increasingly unsustainable burden on Gen Z and Millennials.

A millionaire like Rishi Sunak pays an effective rate of 23% tax on his £2.2m income. And yet, someone in their late 20’s earning, say, £55,000 will pay 51% of every extra £ they earn (40% tax + 2% NI + 9% Student Loans). And we wonder why younger voters are disengaged and demographic time bombs arise.

In percentage terms, the tax burden rises, falls hardest on the struggling middle income, and then reduces, as wealth becomes sufficient to afford tax advisors. Once a level of wealth is achieved, the UK has some of the most generous tax relief schemes in the world. These need pruning.

Tagged | 8 Comments

What Trans Day of Visibility means to me

Today is the Trans Day of Visibility. It’s a day I’ve felt cynical about in past years.

The discussion around trans rights gets seen a lot. Whether it’s philosophical or academic debates on “what is a woman”, we’re also seeing the persecution of trans rights currently being seen most visibly under Trump’s government, but also the slow and steady dismantling of trans healthcare (particularly for under-18s) from Labour and Wes Streeting and legal protections in the UK through the courts emboldening transphobia.

But seldom in that visibility are actual trans people. There are a number of names involved in “the trans debate” but very few of those names are actually trans people. What we need is for trans people to be seen too.

What I need is not only to be seen as a hot topic or debate item, but to be seen as a person, messy and imperfect as everyone else. Not as a predator undertaking a shady underhand attempt to erode women’s rights (which as a woman protect me as much as anyone else, why would I try to erode them) who wants to destroy western civilisation or whatever UK broadsheets are accusing people like me of today, but as a human being who loves skiing, sharing bottles of wine with friends, making terrible jokes and turning up at the pub quiz to have a go at winning the prize. A software engineer who got elected to represent her local area, motivated by making the world a tiny bit better every day.

Tagged | 7 Comments

The speech I didn’t make at Conference – Suzanne Fletcher

With my thinking dulled with pain killers and not properly reading the emergency motion, Restoring International Development Assistance – Liberal Democrats I didn’t put a card in to speak.

The speeches were excellent, and it was one of those times when I was very proud to be a Liberal Democrat.

While increased defence spending is essential to support Ukraine and ensure the UK’s security, it cannot and should not be met through unfair measures like cutting our Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the 0.7% of GDP agreed under The Coalition, to 0.5% under the Conservative Government, to Labour’s proposal of 0.3%. …

Tagged | 13 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Garlick
    Touted as bringing power to people. Power brought down from Govt sounds good but power still not reaching the lowest possible levels in our Communities....
  • Tristan Ward
    @ David Allen "PFI won’t help stop the planet burning" Who said anything about PFI - I didn't. The private money that is building (not enough) house...
  • Joey Vimsante
    I think the EU and UK needs to support not for profit, social media platforms that put the interest of the public, vulnerable people, young people, and nation a...
  • Nick Baird
    With regard to client-side image scanning, the danger of mission creep are real, but I have other concerns. One is whether this is truly a practical and effecti...
  • Tara Foster
    Hi Simon "Has the author not heard of girls sharing pictures with boys who then share with their friends ? of boys and girls tricked in to sharing pictures w...