Category Archives: Op-eds

Peter Wrigley

Avoiding an end of history

By Peter Wrigley | Fri 14th March 2025 - 12:53 pm

As a dedicated Liberal I’ve always vaguely subscribed to the Whig view of history, defined roughly that, by and large, on the whole and in the main, things are gradually getting better.  Improvements are due to the gradual progress made in the development of democracy, increases in individual liberty, and advances in science and technology.  There are, of course, occasional steps backwards, but the direction is generally onwards and upwards.

To take each in turn, since 1945 in the UK we’ve seen the increase in women’s and minority representation in parliament, and the creation of effective specialist committees; we no longer hang people, racial discrimination is illegal, gays, lesbians, and unmarried mothers get a better deal, and couples can live together respectably without formal ties if they prefer things that way; and science and technology have made astonishing strides, especially n the fields and medicine and communications.

On the downsides, we still don’t have a fair election system, turnout at elections has fallen, local government has been enfeebled  and the executive’s control over parliament has increased intolerably; individual and institutional racism and suspicion of “the other” endure and have become a campaigning tools for mainstream parities as well as the extreme right; some scientific “advances” (eg plastics) are polluting the planet or contribute to climate change, improvements in communications have made it much easier to disseminate misinformation as well as enlightenment –  and nuclear weapons,  could bring an end to most life on the planet, except for microbes.

But by and large (again) Britain is a much better place to live in now than it was 80 years ago, and much the same can certainly be said of most of Europe and probably most parts of the rest of the world (exceptions being such as Tibet, Myanmar, parts of China, and, of course, the areas where “minor”  wars persist.)

However the election and actions of President Trump very clearly thrown a spanner in this cosy view of steady progress.

But we’ve been there before.

Consider the world at the turn of the last century, say 1900 to 1910.  A Liberal government with a massive majority set about taxing the rich to establish the welfare state, reducing the powers of the aristocracy in the House of Lords, amid growing recognition of the right for women to participate in  politics; there hadn’t been a major  war in Europe for 80+ years; the Royal Navy “ruled the waves,” we were on friendly terms with Germany, which already had a welfare state and Edward VII established the Entente Cordiale with France; the British Empire ruled about two thirds of the World’s ’s population and thought it was doing them a favour by  bringing “Civilisation, Christianity and Commerce” to  primitive lands and peoples; railways were taking the workers away for holidays at the seaside, cars, radio and cinema were  being invented, and the Americans were keeping themselves to themselves at the other side of the world.

What was not to like?

Yet for no apparent reason other than international rivalry which appeared at first to be no more than school sport-day style enthusiasm, by 1914 the world entered into the most devastating war it had experienced to that date, which continued for four years through a combination of pride and obstinacy.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 7 Comments
Jack Carter

New New Labour: a choice of poverty or work

By Jack Carter | Fri 14th March 2025 - 10:14 am

A philosophy of cynicism and cruelty

As a country, we have a very long and complex history when it comes to how we treat our most vulnerable. In recent years, it is abundantly clear that our country has failed to treat these people with dignity. From the Elizabethan Poor Laws to the introduction of austerity, we have a pattern of taking one step forward, followed by two steps back — and this Labour government is no exception to the rule.

We have a government that solely values its citizens based on how much income tax they pay, disregarding the many other ways they may contribute to our society — whether through intellectual, creative work, or contributions to their communities. To believe that the value of a person is derived from economic output alone is simply cynical and callous, although the Treasury does not share that worldview.

Ideology above basic economic sense

Upon hearing the recent announcements regarding the incoming welfare cuts, I took it upon myself to research the harms that will be inflicted, beyond increased food insecurity and squalor. On the surface, one might think that if welfare spending is likely to spiral out of control, it would make sense to make cuts to rein it in. However, once you consider the harms of doing so, you will arrive at a very different conclusion.

Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall would have you believe that welfare cuts will encourage people to enter the workforce and that our benefits are too ‘generous’ — even though the Resolution Foundation disproved this. Making our most vulnerable poorer will only make them sicker, not more inclined towards employment.

However, it doesn’t stop there — as we all know, bad policy leads to a domino effect of even worse outcomes. Whether you agree that current welfare spending is unsustainable or not, you cannot fail to recognize that making people poorer and sicker often comes with self-compounding economic harms:

  • Cutting benefits will inevitably lead to deeper poverty, increased NHS spending, and a reduction in employment figures — you won’t make people find a job by making them sicker.
  • Many claimants rely upon these benefits to afford care, whether that be social care or even from the private healthcare sector due to waiting lists. However, cuts to benefits such as PIP would distort both supply and demand in health and social care, due to reduced affordability, increased costs for local authorities, and unmet care needs — leading to inflationary pressure.
  • Health and social care won’t be the only sectors affected — it will reduce demand in retail and local business, as lower-income households tend to spend most of their income on essentials. Additionally, this could risk cost-push inflation.
  • We will see increased reliance on credit, as claimants will be left out of pocket by these cuts, leading to rising interest rates — a contributing factor to inflationary pressure.

Benefits such as Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment have a stimulus effect, because recipients have a high marginal propensity to consume, which leads to higher spending in local economies, a fiscal multiplier effect, and increased employment and productivity. Cancelling that effect with cuts will affect everyone.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 13 Comments
Robin Stafford

The quest for liberal democratic capitalism

By Robin Stafford | Thu 13th March 2025 - 3:21 pm

It’s easy to argue that today’s failures – public services, low investment, poor productivity, decaying infrastructure, environmental degradation, etc – are the result of 10-15 years of economic policies pursued by a government pandering to selfish interests. But what if the problem is wider than those policies and ideology? What if our underlying economic system is actually working against the interests of liberal democracy, and contributing to the rise of populism and authoritarianism?

This is the core argument of one of the seminal texts to be published in the last two years, Martin Wolf’s The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. The Financial Times’ chief economics commentator charts how today’s form of capitalism is actively undermining democracy, which it sees as getting in its way: interfering with its single-minded focus on money for shareholders and executives, regardless of the consequences for the wider economy, society and the environment. The result is that inequalities are growing, whilst those with money are retreating from society and criticising governments for money spent on public services. Wolf argues for reviving faith in the common good, and says citizenship has a vital role to play.

This presents an opportunity for Lib Dems to develop a different approach to the economy as a whole, building on the thinking of those economists who have been challenging the prevailing orthodoxy – not just Wolf but the eight who signed September’s letter to the FT, including Gus O’Donnell and the former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill. Their letter said it was so vital to invest in restoring Britain’s crumbling public services that they urged Rachel Reeves not to cut public spending (unfortunately, Reeves seems to have opted for austerity-lite, growing steadily heavier by the week.)

I’m not suggesting I have the perfect oven-ready new economic model to hand, but that’s deliberate. To gain widespread support, such a model needs to reflect the interests of a wide section of society, including the environment. There are countries which already have successful models that differ from the Anglo-Saxon version, notably in Scandinavia.

Such a model has to place a much greater emphasis on sustainability – not just environmental, but social and economic as well.  Economic policy must question the current roles of the Treasury and the Bank of England, which currently reflect the interests of finance rather than the wider economy, society, and sustainability. Business/industry policy must tackle underinvestment; it must look at the role of the City and finance in driving short termism and excessive rewards for a few; it must toughen regulation on monopolies and those firms and sectors that act against the country’s social, economic, and environmental interests; and it must act as a catalyst for publicly desirable activities, like the growth of renewables and improvements to quality of life. The aim is wealth creation for the whole country, not just wealth extraction to benefit a small minority.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
David McKenzie

The SNP’s Defence delusions: A fantasy that puts Scotland at risk

By David McKenzie | Wed 12th March 2025 - 5:08 pm

The Scottish National Party has long promoted an unrealistic vision of Scotland’s defence in the event of independence. Their incoherent and reckless approach, outlined in the deeply flawed 2014 White Paper, demonstrates an alarming lack of seriousness in dealing with modern security threats. With a resurgent Russia invading Ukraine and probing NATO’s defences, the world becoming increasingly unstable and Donald Trump back in the White House openly questioning America’s commitment to NATO, the SNP’s defence policies are not just inadequate, they are dangerous.

The 2014 White Paper proposed a budget of just £2.5 billion for Scotland’s armed forces barely enough to maintain a credible defence structure. It assumed Scotland would inherit assets from the UK Armed Forces, despite no legal mechanism ensuring this. It envisioned a ‘Scottish Defence Force’ with a handful of frigates, a small army, and a limited air force, all while rejecting the very defence arrangements that currently protect Scotland. The reality of setting up a military from scratch was entirely ignored. Where would personnel be trained? How would equipment be procured? What alliances would Scotland rely on, given that SNP membership remains broadly opposed to NATO? These are fundamental questions that remain unanswered.

The SNP has no serious plan for dealing with the threats Scotland faces. Russian military aircraft routinely test the UK’s air defences, often requiring RAF jets to intercept them as they approach Scottish-UK airspace. Currently these intrusions are swiftly dealt with by highly trained personnel operating from Lossiemouth. An independent Scotland, with a small air force and no serious defence infrastructure, would struggle to respond adequately. If the SNP still intends to pursue another independence referendum in the next Scottish Parliament, they must be forced to explain how they would protect Scotland from these threats. The UK’s integrated defence network, intelligence-sharing agreements, and military alliances provide Scotland with essential security. An independent Scotland would be left exposed.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
Lucy Nethsingha

We can start to improve social care by tackling attitudes towards migrants

By Lucy Nethsingha | Wed 12th March 2025 - 11:12 am

If ever there’s an issue – or a sub-section of a broader issue – that sums up the sense that the UK is broken, even eight months after a new government was supposed to set a new direction, it’s social care.

The crisis in social care has been recognised for decades, but successive governments have failed to tackle it, and it’s getting rapidly worse. This is bad enough on its own, but it has two serious knock-on effects: it reduces the effectiveness of the NHS as it cannot release from hospitals some patients who are fit to leave but have nowhere to go; and it further drags down the reputation of local government, which doesn’t have the resources to deal with social care and sinks ever lower in the public’s estimation. Add the effects of Brexit, Covid, the cost-of-living crisis and a toxic debate on immigration, and you see why the situation with social care is worse now than it has ever been.

So what do we do? Well, a lot of money would help – most solutions to the social care problem require money, but, let’s face it, the kind of public spending that just isn’t feasible at the moment. So we have to look in other directions.

There have been four major shocks to the social care system in recent years: Covid, the cost-of-living crisis, Brexit, and Britain’s attitude towards immigration. The first two are factors largely outside our control. We can’t undo the loss of so many NHS and care staff due to the impact of Covid, and the cost of living crisis, coupled with repeated rises to the Real Living Wage and NI rates for employers, has sent the cost of staff rocketing, with many care companies struggling to compete for permanent staff and often forced to pay high wages to agency personnel.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 14 Comments
Stephen O'Brien

PIP: A lifeline for disabled people to work and live independently

By Stephen O'Brien | Tue 11th March 2025 - 10:55 am

PIP (Personal Independence Payment) isn’t just another welfare benefit. It’s absolutely essential for disabled people who want to work and remain part of society. For so many, it’s the key to overcoming barriers and being able to lead the lives they choose, despite the many challenges they face. PIP helps cover the extra costs associated with disabilities, from getting to work to needing a carer to assist them throughout the day. It’s not just a handout, but a vital tool that allows disabled individuals to live with dignity and independence.

The importance of PIP cannot be overstated. It enables people to get into work, stay there, and contribute to society, instead of being stuck on the sidelines. It’s about providing an equal opportunity for disabled people to engage in the workforce, despite the physical and financial obstacles they might encounter. Without PIP, many disabled people simply wouldn’t be able to work, or would struggle to stay in employment. PIP helps level the playing field, enabling disabled people to live more independently and participate fully in society, just like everyone else.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
Andrew Chandler

Sick man of Europe, again: welfare, work and Britain’s dilemma

By Andrew Chandler | Tue 11th March 2025 - 9:00 am

In the 1970s, Britain was called the sick man of Europe. Years later, that sick man has returned; with its withered cane. This time, however, it comes to us in sickness benefits (a cruel irony); having ballooned 25% since 2019. Some chalk it up to COVID’s long shadow. However, our European counterparts, who also endured the pandemic and post-recovery, have not seen the same rise in welfare. This suggests why some circles are calling it a “British disease”.

Rachel Reeves’, boxed in by her fiscal rules, is staring down a £9bn hole. A hole that might come from welfare cuts. Labour ministers are proclaiming that people are “gaming the system”.

Now, bad actors exist. I’ve no doubt there are people who cheat the system – I saw this as a Housing Officer. But also during that period, I saw the vast majority of sickness benefit claims were done in good faith. A recent example, I recently spoke to a man who had worked for decades as a Health & Safety Lead and Warehouse Operator for a supermarket. The stroke took that away from him. His employer, despite years of service, couldn’t make meaningful adjustments to keep him on. But he still had his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to shelter him. If it was not for PIP, the stroke would have been the least of his problems – he remarked. This is why we have a safety net. It suggests to me that businesses aren’t doing enough in making adjustments. If we are going to win on Social Security then we need to also win on Job Security.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 21 Comments
Michal Siewniak

How can Town Twinning be “resurrected” in the UK?

By Michal Siewniak | Mon 10th March 2025 - 5:04 pm

As a Polish born Councillor, I have always wanted to show my beautiful nation to some of my Council colleagues. Although Poland has become a popular tourist or a city-break destination, I think that still many of us have incorrect perceptions of the country of my birth. Since 1989 and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and in particular since the beginning of the centre, Poland has changed beyond recognition. Membership of the EU since 2004, high levels of growth, investment and productivity, and a strong economy helped Poland to establish itself as a key decision maker in Europe, and a country that many look up to.

At the end of February, I was absolutely delighted that, thanks to an invitation from Mr Łukasz Kuźmicz, the Mayor of Syców, the Mayor of Welwyn Hatfield, Councillor Frank Marsh, and I had an amazing opportunity to visit the South-West part of Poland.

It is fair to say that we were truly overwhelmed with our trip so far; incredible hospitality, well run and organised Council, fantastic staff at local primary and secondary schools, and students with fluent English. The list goes on! I was so impressed with the Polish “can-do” attitude, willingness to cooperate and just constant drive to make things happen.

Continue reading »
Also posted in Local government | Tagged | 2 Comments
Nathan Hunt

Why Labour’s council reorganisation threatens young people’s representation in politics

By Nathan Hunt | Mon 10th March 2025 - 12:48 pm

Local government reorganisation is happening. That’s the reality.

As a current district councillor, I could debate the pros and (many) cons of this all day – but one topic I’ve heard worryingly little about is how these reforms could destroy what little representation young people have in local government.

Currently, young people in local government are a rarity. According to 2022 data from the Local Government Association, just 16% of councillors are under the age of 45 – despite the same group accounting for over 40% of the population.

The same dataset found that just 1.2% of councillors were aged under 25 – around 200 in total across England.

There’s currently half as many under-25s who are councillors than players in the Premier League.

This isn’t a surprise. The role on paper just doesn’t work for young people. Whilst being a councillor is intended to sit on top of a full time role, the reality is very different, with meetings easily spilling over into the daytimes, ever-growing casework piles, huge time pressures, and residents’ needs to meet. On top of this, councillors with special responsibilities face even greater challenges.

This blind spot is a huge problem. Our councils need to reflect our whole communities, not just a subset of them. Councils need councillors with a range of experience and backgrounds to make good decisions – and councils that lack young voices (and voices from other underrepresented backgrounds) lack views from the whole community. Whilst a good councillor is capable and able to represent the views of their whole community, it’s still absolutely vital to have young people around the table.

Unitarisation makes these problems worse. It raises the barrier to entry significantly, and higher barriers to entry can often lead to worse representation of underrepresented groups – placing the already dire representation of young people further at risk.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 11 Comments
Duncan Brack

A distinctive defence niche for the Lib Dems to seize

By Duncan Brack | Mon 10th March 2025 - 10:35 am

In the last couple of weeks, policy on defence has suddenly moved centre-stage – to the point where even Lib Dem Voice has an article about it! The support given to Ukraine by our parliamentary party is no less than one would expect, but perhaps we should look a little deeper, as there’s an idea for making defence spending more effective which the Liberal Democrats are ideally placed to champion.

Much political and media attention is focused on the need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. Starmer realised the significance of this and the need to act urgently ahead of his visit to the White House. He shifted from his 2024 manifesto position of 2.5 per cent ‘when resources allow’ to 2.5 per cent from 2027, with funding coming from reductions in international development assistance. 

But we need to be clear on what the money will buy. What capabilities does the UK need? Also, how do we ensure value for money – maximising the benefit from each pound, both in terms of defence capability but also as a contribution to UK jobs and economic growth, rather than US imports?

Currently the UK’s defence, intelligence and security arrangements are effectively joined at the hip with the US. Our nuclear deterrent is supplied by the US. Our intelligence comes largely from the US through the Five Eyes network, led by the US. Much of our kit is purchased from the US and our command and control is dependent on US technology. 

So a pressing question is whether we now need to establish our own defence capability independent of the US. In the short term, this may be difficult – hence the need to maintain a relationship with President Trump. But in the medium term, and particularly in how the UK uses its increased defence budget, there is an urgent need to move away from US dependence, as the last few weeks have underlined.

We could attempt to do this on a UK-only basis. Or we could attempt it through much greater cooperation and integration across Europe. While grateful for European support, the Ukrainians have experienced at first hand the difficulties of fighting a war using what they have described as a ‘military zoo’. The EU has 12 types of battle tank, while the US has one.

This, then, is the opportunity. At a time when the UK and its European partners need to step up expenditure on defence when resources are limited, it is vital that the extra money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Crucially, if the UK is to realise economies of scale and interoperability and have the ability to act without relying on the US, then Europe’s military capabilities must be integrated much more closely. We need to create a single European defence industry capable of supplying our needs, ensuring European control of the technology, and ensuring that the economic benefits, including jobs, are shared fairly with our partners on this side of the Atlantic.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 14 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 9th March 2025 - 8:30 am

Germany

Friedrich Merz is steaming ahead—and he hasn’t even formed his government.

The string bean leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is certain to be chancellor as soon as he has formed his coalition with the Social Democrats. But that will take several weeks of political haggling and the fast moving and fast deteriorating international scene dictates that the power house of Europe must be involved NOW.

So, next week the German parliament is being recalled to amend the federal constitution to allow the government to increase borrowing to boost the economy by investing in infrastructure and to pay for a bigger defense establishment. This means that when the new government is sworn in on March 25th it will have the financial means to hit the ground running.

Up until the election of Donald Trump Merz was a firm Atlanticist. But on election night he he spun 180 degrees. “My absolute priority,” he told supporters, “will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”

And for those who worry about Trump pulling out of NATO, Merz strongly hinted that Europe may be the ones to leave the alliance.

United States

The US Department of Defense recently published a manual on counter-insurgency called Joint Publication 3-24 (JP3-24). It argued that the lessons over the past 60 years show that in the 21st century the only way that one country can successfully occupy another is through total annihilation.

“To hold countries,” wrote the American planners, “you need to impose order. To impose order you need to control populations. To control populations you need to use violence. Violence leads to violence, which is inherently antithetical to order.”

American forces have discovered in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan that, even with the support of local governments, tiny pockets of resistance can make chaos more or less permanent. Attempts to quell that chaos are counterproductive as they only result in reactive violence.

The days of colonial empires imposing their rule on near-docile populations is over. In the post-colonial world populations demand the right to rule. If occupiers want to usurp that right they have to impose draconian anti-insurgent measures and each new imposition undermines their control.

What the US has found to its cost, the Russians should have concluded after the failure of their Ukrainian puppet Viktor Yanukovych and will discover again if they succeed in ousting Volodomyr Zelensky and installing a stooge in Kyiv. Vladimir Putin will certainly discover the truth of JP3-24 if he goes onto re-establish the Russian empire and conquers Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and others.

His only hope is to replace the local majority with an ethnic Russian majority. This was a well-tried tactic of the tsars and Joseph Stalin which led to the forced removal of local populations to less equable climes such as Siberia.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 6 Comments
Mo Waqas

My mother: my hero. A tribute on International Women’s Day

By Mo Waqas | Sat 8th March 2025 - 4:30 pm

On this International Women’s Day, I want to celebrate the greatest hero in my life — my mother, Amtal.

My mother is a woman of extraordinary strength, resilience, and unwavering principles. She may stand at just 4’11”, but her presence is far greater. She carries herself with dignity, pride, and courage that inspires everyone who knows her.

Today, my mother lives a peaceful and independent life in a small village called Kotha, in the Gujrat district of Punjab, Pakistan. She spends her days tending to her small plot of land, growing her own food, nurturing her beautiful flowers, and caring for her chickens and beloved dog. After years of hardship and struggle, she now enjoys the quiet life she always deserved — a life she built through resilience and hard work.

The values that shaped me

My mother’s greatest gift to me wasn’t just her love — it was her wisdom. She believed that strength is measured not by power or status, but by how you treat others.

She taught me to stand up for those who can’t defend themselves, to never compromise on my values, and to remain humble no matter how much success I achieve.

I remember her telling me, “Never bow before small men in big offices.” She believed that respect should be earned through character, not through titles or wealth. This principle has stayed with me throughout my life — in my career, in politics, and in my relationships.

Whenever I faced tough decisions or difficult people, her voice echoed in my mind: “Do what’s right, even if you stand alone.”

Her unshakable spirit

Continue reading »
Tagged | 4 Comments
Chris Bowers

What would Paddy do?

By Chris Bowers | Sat 8th March 2025 - 2:30 pm

Image of Paddy Ashdown with words "What would Paddy do?"Bringing the party’s first leader back to life – in a modern-day cause

Six years after his premature death at age 77, Paddy Ashdown is making a comeback in the interests of the party’s immediate future.

Well, not really. But Paddy’s name does adorn a new publication from the Yorkists, a group of party activists keen for the Lib Dems to have a stronger public identity. What would Paddy do? is ostensibly a submission to the party’s policy review, the one chaired by Ed Davey and Eleanor Kelly that will report later this spring and propose motions to federal conference in September. But it’s really a discussion paper about where the Lib Dems need to go, given that the run-in to the 2029 general election is likely to take place on various shifting sands.

Despite its formulation, the title of the Yorkists’ submission is not an attempt to second-guess what Paddy Ashdown would do in the current circumstances, but to invoke the spirit of a political colossus who understood the person-in-the-street and was willing to take bold and counterintuitive stances. His stand-out policy was a penny on income tax to fund a boost to education, the tax rise deliberately ring-fenced to make it more palatable to voters (if indigestible to Treasury mandarins), but he also went against the Zeitgeist in 1989 when he called for all Hong Kong citizens with British nationality to be allowed to live here.

Consequently, what the Yorkists are feeding into the policy review addresses nine policy areas, combining immediate pragmatic proposals with thinking outside the box and challenging today’s Zeitgeist. Defence is a fast-moving topic, but the main call in What would Paddy do? is for cooperation among Europe’s states so money spent on defence goes further. It also urges efforts to tackle housing shortages to focus not simply on new building targets but on a package of measures that includes stipulating the right kind of dwellings to be built and accompanying land and taxation measures to stop starter homes becoming boltholes for the urban rich.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 9 Comments
Mike Clancy

The Independent View: Why Lib Dems should support the Employment Rights Bill

By Mike Clancy | Sat 8th March 2025 - 12:30 pm

When people think of the priorities of the Liberal Democrats, they may not immediately think of employment rights, compared to the focus on health and care, or on Europe. But reading last year’s manifesto, the degree of attention paid to this issue would surprise many. The manifesto that delivered such a resounding result for the party included a commitment to ensure “the highest possible standards” of labour protection, alongside individual measures on zero hours contracts, sick pay, and more.

Such language isn’t a surprise to me or to the trade union I lead. As a politically independent union, Prospect has a long history of working with Liberal Democrats, and we know that concern for worker’s rights isn’t confined to one corner of the political spectrum. That is why I am confident that the Liberal Democrats, and especially Lib Dem peers, will play a positive role in the next stages of the Employment Rights Bill.

The Bill has clearly been the subject of considerable commentary, and the number of amendments reflects the extensive discussion that has taken place between government, business and trade unions. At its heart though, the Bill remains a vehicle for tackling some of the worst abuses in our labour market, guaranteeing individual and collective rights, and setting us back on a path to a high growth and high productivity economy based on positive employment relations. All of these aims fit squarely within the Liberal Democrat tradition, as does the way that the Bill assists with the immediate challenge we face in health and care which is rightly the party’s priority.

The headlines here will of course be about the way the Bill seeks to tackle our broken sick pay system which was horribly exposed by the Covid pandemic, and the move towards solving the workforce crisis in social care by introducing a new Fair Pay Agreement. This is a necessary, though clearly not sufficient, step towards fixing this broken system and I know Lib Dems will continue to campaign on this issue.

Continue reading »
Also posted in The Independent View | Tagged , , and | 3 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Buy American, Save Ukraine.

By Tom Arms | Sat 8th March 2025 - 9:11 am

There is an outside, long shot chance of saving Ukraine and the Western Alliance—Buy American.

I don’t mean American cars or cereal. I mean something which really costs—American weaponry, American satellite links and American intelligence.

The money is there, $300-plus billion in frozen Russian assets that was being held back for Ukrainian reconstruction. There is not much point in saving it for reconstruction purposes if there is no country to reconstruct.

On top of that the normally frugal Germans are about to remove the EU debt brake and leap into a defense spending spree. And across Europe taxes are set to rise and welfare budgets cut to pay for what is now a defense emergency.

The purpose of the rapid rise in defense spending is to fill the huge hole left by the withdrawal of the United States from Ukraine and probably Europe as a whole. The problem is that no matter how big the budget it will take at least five—probably more—years to rebuild military forces and defense industries, and Putin is banging on Europe’s door today.

That is why British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky pressed Donald Trump for security guarantees as part of any ceasefire agreement.

The problem is that Trump does not see any advantage for him—or America—in providing such guarantees. It involves expensive aid until a ceasefire agreement is reached; commits US forces to a clash with Russia if Putin—as expected—breaks the ceasefire and potentially interferes with his plans to buddy up with fellow autocrat and would block access to Russian natural resources.

So give him a cash incentive with a bit of ego boosting thrown in for good measure. This is the kind of enticement Trump easily understands.

To start with the US gets the mineral rights deal he is demanding for past aid. Next,Trump is the recognised point man in negotiations with Vladimir Putin, but he has to consult and keep informed  European leaders and Zelensky.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Samuel Jackson

Increasing the Liberal Democrats’ Northern Appeal

By Samuel Jackson | Fri 7th March 2025 - 6:52 pm

At last year’s general election, the British people voted for change following nearly a decade of chaos under the Conservatives punctuated by austerity, Brexit, mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, scandal at Westminster, the mini-budget and the cost-of-living crisis. This much was shown by the twenty-point slump in their vote share in comparison to their 2019 result.

Nationwide, our party gained 57 seats to elect a total of 72 MPs to Westminster, our best performance ever and a close parliamentary reflection of our vote share of 12.2%. Because of the distortive effects of First Past the Post, a system whereby winning only one-third of votes casts gave Labour a 411-seat landslide, we had to undertake a laser-focused campaign targeting changeable seats. While our party represents constituencies throughout Great Britain from St. Ives to Orkney and Shetland, nearly 82% of our MPs represent the South of England. This is largely the result of our new MPs being elected predominantly from the dismantled Conservatives’ Blue Wall.

By contrast, there are only four MPs representing the North of England: the incumbent Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) and the newly elected Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove), Tom Morrison (Cheadle) and Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough). This is not reflective of our support in the region. Because of FPTP, we won only half of our fair share of seats in Northwest England and only a quarter in Yorkshire and Humber; in Northeast England, our 5.8% vote share won us no seats while Labour won 26 out of 27 seats on 45.4%.

The North of England has historically been considered part of Labour’s Red Wall. However, the loss of many of these seats to the Conservatives in 2019 shows that Labour’s grip on the region is slipping. With Labour now in government at Westminster and their actions and inactions earning them the ire of many, we are presented with an opportunity to make further inroads and resolve a possible North-South disparity within our own party.

Continue reading »
1 Comment
Matthew Ma

ALDC by-election Report, 6th March

By Matthew Ma | Fri 7th March 2025 - 5:40 pm

This week with its 9 principal councils saw mostly successful defences this week across all political parties, with only 2 exchanging hands. A huge gain for the Lib Dems from the Tories thanks to our consistent performance, and another for an independent councillor from a slumping Labour. The Conservatives and Labour both held their remaining 2 seats respectively, while the Lib Dems, the Green Party, and Plaid Cymru all held theirs.

Part of the only 2 gains this week, Cllr Andy Bell managed to gain the seat in Vivary Bridge, Vivary Bridge from the Conservatives, who fell to third place this time around behind Reform. Congratulations to Andy and the team for the monumental win!

Pendle BC, Vivary Bridge
Liberal Democrat (Andy Bell): 388 (34.9%, +3.5%)
Reform: 358 (32.2%, new)
Conservative: 244 (22.0%, -16.9%)
Labour: 121 (10.9%, -11.9%)

In Eastleigh BC, Cllr Prad Bains gathered over half of the vote in the Hamble & Netley ward, holding the seat. Congrats to Prad and the local team for the fabulous win, towering over second place Reform.

Eastleigh BC, Hamble & Netley
Liberal Democrat (Prad Bains): 1224 (52.1%, -6.7%)
Reform: 542 (23.1%, new)
Conservative: 421 (17.9%, +3.0%)
Labour: 164 (7.0%, +0.5%)

Continue reading »
Tagged | 7 Comments
Caron Lindsay

World Book Day! What are you reading?

By Caron Lindsay | Thu 6th March 2025 - 7:50 pm

It’s World Book Day today! Children all over the country are heading to school dressed up as their favourite book character. My 12 month old great niece even went to nursery in a Very Hungry Caterpillar costume.

Unfortunately, MPs don’t dress up, but some have marked the occasion. Here’s Christine Jardine on books at lunchtime in her office:

I’m not sure why Tom Gordon is reading Brave New World when he could just watch the news. He said on Twitter:

Happy World Book Day. I’m currently reading Brave New World for the first time. There’s probably a joke here about the state of the world and reading a dystopian novel.

Adam Dance, aware of the impact of Dyslexia, wrote to the Education Secretary to ask for more action to help pupils with the condition:

A very sobering thought from a bookshop owner I know who said that the free World Book Day books given to children are often, for children on free school meals, the first book they have ever owned. I loved reading as a child, I always had my nose in a book. It took me out of my own head and made me imagine. Reading is so enjoyable and really helps you learn and develop as a person and it’s so sad that reading for pleasure is on the wane.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 12 Comments
Rob Parsons

A non-wonk’s guide to liberalism

By Rob Parsons | Thu 6th March 2025 - 12:10 pm

A while ago someone was looking for what they called a brief non-wonk’s guide to liberalism. In a fit of activism I wrote one. Once I had fleshed it out, I was surprised by the centrality the idea of debate had to my entire presentation.

The logic is quite simple. Liberalism has at its centre a broad brush of principle – that each should be free to do whatever they want provided they do not harm others in exercising that freedom. There is relatively little else that is central to the principles. That means that every strategy, position, rule or practice has to be worked out in the light of current circumstances to align as closely as possible to that principle – which means that all those practices, strategies, etc, have to be worked out anew again and again. (“When the circumstances change, I change my mind.”) That means we need to be able to talk to each other continuously and honestly, and yet sensitively and with respect.

It takes quite a lot of self discipline to do that. No doubt many would argue that we have lost that ability – social media, echo chambers, the weaponisation of lies, the practice of bullshit. I do not believe that; the ability to listen and speak respectfully has to be learned anew by each generation. And that is perhaps more important for us than for other political parties because it is so central to the practice of liberalism.

Arguably, we in the Liberal Democrats are not very good at it (though we’re certainly no worse than other parties). Debate descends into argument too quickly and too often. Perhaps we need to revive the practice of teaching the skills of debate as a central part of being a Liberal Democrat, so that we can converse most productively both among ourselves and in other fora. Perhaps there could be a new section on the Campaign Hub. (Yes, I’m being a bit mischievous, but only a bit.)

Continue reading »
Tagged | 24 Comments
Ken Westmoreland

So long Skype: the demise of a once disruptive technology

By Ken Westmoreland | Thu 6th March 2025 - 9:24 am

I haven’t used Skype in years, and nor have many of my contemporaries, and it was only reading a reference to it by a Lib Dem peer in a debate that I remembered it still existed, but in the wake of Microsoft’s announcement that it will soon be discontinued, it’s worth remembering what the world of international telecommunications was like before it.

Having lived and travelled abroad in the 1990s, I remember when international calls were a thing, and an expensive one at that, either entailing buying phone cards or frantically feeding coins into a payphone just to get someone call you back. Indeed, it reflected the era Skype was born in that a Guardian headline referred to how it ‘disrupted the landline industry’, and while it did become available on smartphones, it still conjures up images of clunky old desktop computers.

Skype is what is known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, and while it was not the first such service, it was certainly the most user-friendly, and inexpensive, as it only required you to download a piece of free software, create an account with a user name and password, and you were free to call anyone else who had done the same. By contrast, other VoIP services required you to buy expensive bits of hardware, and even if you were willing to, how many of your friends and family were?

Its founders, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, were no strangers to disruptive technology, having been behind the file-sharing app Kazaa, before it faced multiple lawsuits from record companies and film studios over copyright infringement. However, while creative industries could arouse public sympathy, given the cultural resonance of music and film, the same could not be said for telephone companies, which were, and still are, charging subscribers exorbitant amounts by the minute for voice calls, and were in dire need of disruption by the likes of Skype.

Traditionally, international phone calls were only possible because telecom operators in different countries had agreed to interconnect with each other, or rather, governments, because they were often state owned, and extensions of the post office. In addition, those operators were usually a monopoly, and if they weren’t, other operators were subject to licensing and regulation.

But Skype changed that; it mattered naught what country you were in, as long as you had a decent internet connection, you could use it, although some telecom operators did their best to block or throttle it. In addition, you were not completely cut off from the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) as you could buy credit to make outbound calls to regular phone numbers, and receive inbound calls on a regular phone number in the country of your choice.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 4 Comments

Europe must federalise to survive in a Trumpian world

By James Lawrence and Ben Cope | Tue 4th March 2025 - 2:00 pm

The continent must unite to survive without America’s support. Federalism is the way.

The Europe we know and love is under threat. For President Trump, ‘America First’ means everyone else last, allies included. In a dizzying flurry of official announcements and offhand remarks, the man in the White House has undermined Europe’s economies, security, and ultimately, its very existence.

By threatening to withdraw military support for Ukraine, Trump has signalled America will no longer be the world’s policeman and protect Europe. The continent needs to stand on its own two feet. But it’s stumbling. Soon-to-be German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hit the right notes when he said “my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” but there’s no plan to achieve it. When Trump asked Starmer if the UK could “take on Russia” by itself in an otherwise chummy meeting, he was met with an awkward laugh.

Without American support, Europe faces existential threats in a hostile world. We are simply not in control of our destiny. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it requires getting real about where our strength lies – together. A federal Europe, where both sovereignty and identity are shared between supranational, national, and local levels would give us the power to make our voices heard. Such a system works in America, dividing politics and culture between federal, state and county levels, and, on a smaller scale, in Germany. We are stronger united.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 26 Comments
Andrew Chandler

Trump, Zelensky and the White Paper of our time

By Andrew Chandler | Tue 4th March 2025 - 9:00 am

Embed from Getty Images

The images from the Oval Office were grotesque. Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on his ability to “make deals,” sat across from a beleaguered Volodymyr Zelensky and did what can only be described as political hazing. Instead of offering assurances of support, Trump harangued and hounded the Ukrainian president, all while dangling an exploitative mineral deal before him — one that offers no security guarantees, only the faint scent of transactionalism masquerading as diplomacy.

It was a moment that should chill anyone with a passing knowledge of history. Because what we witnessed wasn’t just another Trumpian tantrum; it was the re-run of an old, dark playbook. The optics of Trump cosying up to Putin’s interests at Ukraine’s expense are hauntingly reminiscent of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin, with all his paranoid cunning, believed that Hitler’s outstretched hand was one of good faith — or at least mutual self-interest. He was wrong. Hitler, never one to honour a deal longer than it served him, turned on the Soviet Union with all the fury of a betrayed beast. The lesson? Dictators do not negotiate in good faith, and deals with devils have expiry dates written in invisible ink.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 19 Comments
Roger Hayes

Pay Attention Britain!

By Roger Hayes | Mon 3rd March 2025 - 1:45 pm
    It’s only been a little over a month since Donald Trump’s return to power and already the world feels a lot less safe; our future a lot less secure.

    His governing style is bluster, bullying, bribery and blackmail. Sidelining Congress in favour of executive fiat, dismantling the US federal structures that threatens the reversal of 80 years of US foreign policy and world order.

    Even our right-wing media are rattled.

    On Wednesday, the Telegraph editorial (while stating the bleeding obvious) read – Sir Keir Starmer will need to tread carefully today as he sets out to gain Washington’s support in several key policy areas. The Prime Minister cannot be seen to overly concede to Donald Trump, but he also cannot risk angering the leader of the world’s largest economy at a time when Britain is on the brink of recession.

    Yesterday, The Mail on Sunday’s headline proclaims (with uncustomary frankness) – Now Stop the State Visit for Bully Trump!

    Sadly, once again our government wrong-steps in its response to a crisis.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 19 Comments
Paul Hindley

Starmer is living in a dreamworld. Britain must choose between Europe and Trump’s America

By Paul Hindley | Sun 2nd March 2025 - 12:43 pm

What a difference a day makes. On Thursday, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to Washington DC to meet with President Donald Trump. There, in the White House, Starmer had a jovial and good-spirited meeting and press conference with the new US President. The press hailed the Prime Minister’s visit as a triumph referring to it as a “love-in” and a “bromance”. It appeared to vindicate Starmer’s strategy of walking a delicate diplomatic tightrope between Europe and the new American administration.

But then came Friday. President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s wartime leader, who is viewed by many to be a modern Churchill, sat in the same seat in the Oval Office as Starmer had done. However, Zelensky’s meeting with Trump could not have represented a greater contrast to that of Starmer’s a day earlier. There, Zelensky was subjected to berating and bullying from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Trump and Vance brought absolute shame on to the Office of the Presidency by goading and bullying Zelensky. All of which played into the hands of Vladimir Putin and his fascist attempt to conquer Ukraine.

Starmer’s dream day in the Oval Office has quickly turned into a living nightmare. Trump’s treatment of Zelensky reveals an uncomfortable truth. That in this increasingly divided and polarised world, Britain cannot continue to walk a diplomatic tightrope between Europe and Trump’s America. Britain will have to decide who it stands with. Do we stand with most other European democracies in defending what remains of the liberal rules-based order, or do we stand with Trump in forging a harsh world of realism, authoritarianism and post-truth politics?

In the EU, the likely next German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for greater European independence from America. There are even serious considerations about the creation of a common European army, especially as Trump’s America is no longer seen as a reliable NATO partner. Britain, along with the rest of Europe, must free itself from its dependency on America, especially on matters of defence. We Europeans must stand on our own two feet. We must embrace being the leaders of the free world, a position that Trump vacated on Friday when he sided with Putin against Zelensky. 

There are significant risks for Britain in choosing to side with Trump over Europe. A cutthroat trade deal with Trump’s America that forced us to reduce our trading standards and economic regulations would be bad for our economy. It would also kill any hopes of getting a stronger trading relationship with the EU. Britain should not allow Trump to bully us into accepting an unfavourable trade deal through the threat of increased tariffs. The Trump Administration has also taken aim at Britain’s attempts to combat hate speech and discrimination. To reduce such protections would only embolden the far-right even further. In short, if we side with Trump, then Britain risks being reduced to a vassal state of Trump’s America.

However, it is far from certain that Starmer will take Britain closer to Europe. Take for example, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, rebutting the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Ed Davey has rightly called for Britain to join a customs union with the EU. Yet, even this proposal, one that would bring clear economic benefits, has not been supported by Labour. The fact that Labour cannot support even the most reasonable and modest proposals for strengthening our relationship with Europe is a cause for concern.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 18 Comments
Samuel Jackson

Peace abroad, peace at home: Addressing the Liberal Democrats’ Achilles’ heels 

By Samuel Jackson | Sun 2nd March 2025 - 10:45 am

On Friday, the Starmer Government witnessed its first departure on principle as Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for International Development, resigned. With Keir Starmer having announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product  by 2027, Dodds criticised the corresponding cut in international development from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%, saying that it would ‘remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation’.

Starmer has said that there is ‘no driver of migration and poverty like conflict’ and Dodds gave him the benefit of the doubt by stating that he was not ‘ideologically opposed’ to international development. Nevertheless, Labour have broken a manifesto pledge. On page 125 of their 2024 manifesto Change, they pledged to increase the UK’s international development budget to 0.7% of GDP, reversing a cut made by the Conservatives. Reducing Britain’s soft power capacity will likely instigate rather than quell conflict.

As this episode coincides with Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that his new spending decisions are driven by pandering rather than prudence. Increasing national defence spending would be a sound means of endearing the UK to Donald Trump who has lambasted NATO allies for not spending enough in this regard, and a sound insurance policy considering his scepticism of the alliance and his wide-eyed admiration for strongman authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin.

However, the converse decrease in international development spending is a blatant attempt by Starmer to ingratiate himself with Trump by aping his administration’s actions. The Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk in their questionable quest to cut $2 trillion worth of federal spending – or 15% of the total US budget – have endeavoured to shut down the US Agency for International Development. Even the temporary funding freezes, overturned through court challenges, have disturbed vital support for programmes combatting diseases including tuberculosis and HIV.

Unfortunately, Labour is also likely playing to a domestic audience. Reform UK have topped several recent opinion polls albeit in the twenties alongside Labour and the Conservatives. By being generally ‘anti’ and actively playing up their position as an opposition party, Reform is drawing in aggrieved supporters  from both major parties. With the Damoclean threat of Reform winning an outright Commons majority in 2029 with even fewer votes than they did in 2024, Labour have decided that following their populist lead is the best course of action.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 2nd March 2025 - 8:26 am

Germany

Europe’s largest economy and largest population has lurched to the right. Friedrich Merz is on the conservative wing of the right of centre Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The Social Democratic Party (SPD) has been relegated to the number three slot for the first in post-war German history. But, more importantly, the far-right Alternativ fur Deutschland (AFD) is now firmly entrenched in the number two position.

Electoral success such as that enjoyed by the AfD in last weekend’s federal elections would normally ensure a place in a coalition government. Not in Germany, the mainstream parties have agreed to a firewall between themselves and the AfD that prohibits political cooperation between themselves and the AfD.

It was this firewall that was recently attacked as “undemocratic” by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.

But then America does not have the burden of a Nazi past which many Germans fear the AfD threatens to resurrect. It favours remigration which many interpret as a mass deportation of immigrants. It is Euro-sceptic; anti-LGBTQ; pro-Russian; opposes sending military aid to Ukraine and is ambivalent about Germany’s Nazi past. Germany’s Committee for the Protection of the Constitution has designated the AfD as an “extremist right-wing” organisation which means it is being closely monitored by the police and security services.

But the AfD garnered 20.8 percent of the vote—double what it won in the previous federal election. The party—or at least its policies—cannot be disregarded, especially its position on immigration.

The traditional German mainstream parties—CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD and Greens—have tended to deal with the immigration issue by ignoring it. In the case of the CDU, Angela Merkel went further and declared that Germany had a moral responsibility to help refugees and in 2015 admitted more than a million and laid the foundations of a backlash.

The new soon-to-be Chancellor Merz is determined to win back AfD supporters by stealing some of their clothes and introducing tough anti-immigrant legislation.

The difficulty is that the AfD has positioned itself as the only party willing to talk about immigration and propose radical action to tackle the perceived problem. If Merz and the CDU position themselves in this space, they risk being perceived as a less authentic version of the AfD. Voters are convinced that the AfD cares passionately about limiting immigration. They may be less convinced that it is a genuine priority of the CDU.

United Kingdom

The famed British Welfare State is threatened by the American withdrawal from Europe and the resultant increase in defense spending.

In fact, social spending belts across Europe will need to tighten as money is poured into missiles, drones, tanks and howitzer shells to protect Western Europe from the Russian bear.

This week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, announced that he was cutting overseas aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent to pay for an increase in defense spending from 2.3 to 2.5 percent by 2027 and three percent by the end of the decade.

The cuts in aid will put $15 billion in the British exchequer which is enough to fund the increased spending up to 2.5 percent but not enough to go all the way to three percent. And, the fact is, that three percent is unlikely to be enough. American officials are talking about five percent across Europe if they want to keep Donald Trump happy and in NATO. And if the US abandons Europe as feared than defense costs will be much, much higher.

Britain, devotes 25 percent of GDP on welfare spending and another 10 percent of GDP on the NHS. Other European countries spend between 25 percent and 30 percent on social welfare. Funding structures for health services varies.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: A British Knight in King Donald’s Court

By Tom Arms | Sat 1st March 2025 - 9:20 am

The British Foreign Office set a low bar for Sir Keir Starmer’s trip to America—Don’t fall out with King Donald. He succeeded.

That is not to say that substantive issues were not discussed. They were and included:

Tariffs – and the possibility, nay probability,  of reviving the Johnson era US-UK trade deal that could exempt Britain from the crippling tariffs that Trump has threatened to impose on the EU.

The Chagos Islands – Trump is inclined to go along with the British position.

And Ukraine – On this top of the agenda item Sir Keir failed. Trump was immovable – No backstop. No security guarantees and total confidence in the honesty of fellow dissembler Vladimir Putin.

The tete a tete started with a cringe-making pantomime when in front of the world’s media the prime minister reached into his suit pocket and drew out a letter from King Charles III.

It was the expected invitation to Trump to make an historic second state visit to Buckingham Palace.

Royal Family fan Donald evinced childlike surprise and delight at the expected letter and the friendly tone was set for the private talks in the Oval Office. The first box was ticked.

An Anglo-American trade deal has long been one of Trump’s priorities. Not because of any love for the royal family or the homeland of his mother. No, Donald Trump wants a trade deal with Britain because he hates the EU. It is a threat to American trade hegemony. Trump wants to encourage its break-up and insure that Britain does not return to the European fold by pulling it closer to America.

In any upcoming trade talks the British public will be focused on chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and higher prices for NHS drugs. The attention of Trump’s negotiators will be on coordinating regulations across a wide-range of goods and services to make it more difficult for Britain to negotiate re-entry into the European single market and/or customs union.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 1 Comment
Tom Arms

The End

By Tom Arms | Sat 1st March 2025 - 7:00 am

February 28, 2025 may well go down in history as the day that the Western Alliance ended and the world was suddenly thrown into an unknown future by a White House bully and his initialled sidekick.

The undynamic duo’s treatment of the president of a country which has sacrificed thousands upon thousands of lives in the cause of the protection of the West shamed the United States and countries who have been in alliance with America.

“Say thank you. Say thank you,” shouted J.D. Vance when he should have been thanking Zelensky for the ultimate sacrifices his countrymen and women have made.

“You are not showing any respect,” said Donald Trump, sounding more like a mafia don then the leader of the Free World. It was draft dodger Trump who should have been respecting wartime leader Zelensky who has—against all odds—held out against the Russian war machine for three years.

Several times Zelensky tried to say thank you and explain his position, but each time he was shouted down by Vance and/or Trump.

At one point Trump pursed his lips shook his head back and forth and repeated in a childishly petulant mocking voice: “I don’t want a ceasefire. I don’t want a ceasefire.”

Again, Zelensky tried to explain that he wants an end to the war but that any ceasefire must come with security guarantees because Putin has broken every ceasefire, treaty and agreement that Ukraine has negotiated with the Russian dictator.

Zelensky flew to Washington to sign a deal which would hand over a major chunk of his country’s mineral rights. Trump said the rare earths that American companies would mine was compensation for the aid that America has given Ukraine. Zelensky agreed to that but also wanted assurances that included in the deal would be future security guarantees. A deal which gave away billions worth of mineral rights in perpetuity without protecting Ukrainian territorial integrity was worthless.

But Trump and Vance were determined to secure the rights and at the same time withdraw American support and bully Zelensky into effectively surrendering to Russia. And it was done before a television audience of billions in what appeared to be an attempt to humiliate the Ukrainian leader. The result was possibly the most disgraceful scene in diplomatic history.

European leaders, Democrats and officials from the first Trump administration seemed to regard it as just that.

John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Adviser, said on X: “Trump and Vance have declared themselves to be on Russia’s side in the Russo-Ukraine war, This is a catastrophic mistake for America’s national security. And let’s be clear: Trump and Vance now personally own that policy. It is not the view of a majority of Americans of either or no political party.”

>H.R. McMaster another former national security advisor in the first Trump administration, said it is  “impossible to understand” why Trump and Vance “seem determined to put more pressure on President Zelensky while they seem to be coddling Putin—the person who inflicted this terrible war in Ukraine.”

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a post on X said the “outrageous display” from Trump and Vance was “disgraceful” and “downright un-American.”

French president Emmanuel Macron said: “We should respect those who have been fighting since the beginning,”

“Ukraine, you’ll never walk alone,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said via X. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Friedrich Merz, the likely incoming German leader, also said he stands with Zelensky before adding that the “aggressor and victim in this terrible war” must never be confused. Top diplomats for the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland issued similar messages of support for Kyiv and the Ukrainian president.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelensky for his “dignity” and said the bloc will continue working with him “for a just and lasting peace.”

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said: “Estonia’s support for Ukraine remains unwavering. It is time for Europe to step up. We do not need to wait for something else to happen; Europe has enough resources, including Russia’s frozen assets, to enable Ukraine to continue fighting,”

The diplomatic meltdown at the White House comes as European leaders—including Zelensky—are preparing to meet in London on Sunday to discuss their next moves in the Ukrainian imbroglio. Host Sir Keir Starmer sees Britain as bridge between Europe and America. The problem is that Trump and Vance appear to be intent on burning that bridge.

Here is the transcript of Trump, Zelensky, and Vance’s contentious exchange. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 11 Comments
Hugh Andrew

Procurement: The beast in the room

By Hugh Andrew | Fri 28th February 2025 - 6:01 pm

I was very interested in the recent article on NHS procurement. As a small business owner I have had multiple dealing with state procurement systems in all their awful grandeur over the years. They may seem dull but in a wholesale reformation of them lies a method of unlocking a massively more efficient and productive state.

UK procurement rules were originally set up to align with EU Directives and with the laudable objective of providing a level platform for competitive tendering for major projects. However intention and execution rarely coincide with regard to British bureaucracy and, while European governments seem to be able to use procedures as they were designed, as they understand and work to the underlying principles, the UK and Scotland used the creation of an extra ‘process’ to:

  1. Set up a bureaucracy of procurement independent of any real control. Like most bureaucracies this validates itself by indefinite and uncontrolled expansion into areas where it is remarkably ill suited (in Scotland the main procurement body is technically under the control of all 32 Scottish local authorities which means it is de facto under no control at all)
  2. Validates its own success.
  3. Instead of simplifying process creates a giddying layer of documentation, gold plating and multiple entering. This of course requires an ever expanding bureaucracy to administer.
  4. Massively expands requirements on interested suppliers by requiring a morass of irrelevant certifications and documentation. This essentially excludes small and medium sized businesses and instead of expanding the potential number of suppliers slashes them.
  5. Since procurement process is deliberately disconnected from the purpose for which it is intended, every project is simply compressed into one ‘standard’ form without any regard for its suitability. Since those who construct the forms have minimal understanding of what they are trying to do they often enshrine economic lunacy in their construction. Since the process is all and its validation is by endless repetition then innovation is completely discouraged.
  6. The result of this is that those who do tender build in an ‘idiocy’ premium to cover themselves against the obvious incomprehension of the process. Both this and the relatively small number of suppliers who work their way through results not in price competitiveness but substantially enhanced pricing.

In an even more Kafkaesque development procurement bodies will often respond to such criticisms by inviting winners of tenders to help refine their procurement processes! Funnily enough those winner then tend to win repeat tenders!

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 2 Comments
Mary Reid

Ed Davey: Why I Care – and why care matters

By Mary Reid | Fri 28th February 2025 - 12:43 pm

Ed Davey has been writing a book entitled Why I Care: And Why Care Matters, which has been taken up by the publisher HarperCollins. Note that this is a holding cover …

The Bookseller has an article about it, although it is incorrect in stating that it is Ed’s debut – in 2001 he wrote Making MP’s Work for Our Money: Reforming Parliament’s Role in Budget Scrutiny, and he has contributed to several other volumes.

The Bookseller give us a quote from the Editorial director for HarperNorth Jonathan de Peyer:

Ed’s story, which he has so bravely made a key element of his party’s campaigning on the issue of social care, touched millions during the general election. But there’s so much of it we don’t know, and so much about Ed’s efforts to support and empower carers, and to reform the sector, that deserves wider attention. This book is a real passion project for all involved and will galvanise public debate about an issue that touches almost all of us.

The book will be published in May and you can pre-order it here.

Continue reading »
Tagged | Leave a comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    Tristan, You're right in the sense that you didn't specifically call for PFI. But you did say "if you can persuade private money to provide the funding on t...
  • 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...