Category Archives: Op-eds

William Wallace writes: How should liberals mark VE Day

Once the local elections are over, commemoration of the 80th anniversary of VE Day on May 8th – the end of the second world war – will provide a focus for public attention and local celebrations.  Many of us will be caught up in ceremonies, street parties or receptions.  I will be singing in a commemorative concert in Westminster Hall (with Mike German, Joan Walmsley and 100 others in the Parliament Choir; do listen to it, broadcast on Classic FM).  

The government and the media will want to make this a patriotic occasion.  What additional twist should Liberal Democrats add to this?  I suggest that we should emphasise what Britain and its American ally declared they were fighting the war for: for political and democratic values, for an open international order and for social democracy at home – all values that are now being challenged by President Trump in the USA and by populists in Britain and in other democratic states.

I’ve just re-read President Roosevelt’s ‘Four Freedoms’ speech, and the Atlantic Charter that he and Winston Churchill signed on a warship off Newfoundland in August 1941.   Together these set out the shared aims for which the UK and the USA fought the war.  Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on January 6th 1941 declared that:

 We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …

The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

Five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.   ‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’

Tagged , , , , , and | 7 Comments

A thief in the night

Imagine if you will that you are sitting quietly in your house when you hear the door open. A man comes in and starts helping himself to your possessions. You remonstrate with him and he pays no attention. A quick phone call brings in the authorities but to your astonishment they arrive, ignore you, congratulate the thief and tell him that to incentivise him in his good work he will get a series of tax breaks.

It couldn’t happen here. 

It is. 

We are a publisher and recent months have seen a growing swell of complaints from our authors about theft of their texts without any permission. At least 7.5 million books without license or recompense into Artificial Intelligence systems, tens of millions of articles and shorter pieces. The action of the UK government is not to defend the intellectual copyrights and property of its citizens but to legislatively legitimise this theft with a generous dose of cream in tax breaks on top.

Tagged , , , and | 4 Comments

Pope Francis and his legacy

Fragile, unwell, but always determined to serve. After his long stay in the hospital, it was so nice to see the Pope yesterday on the famous Vatican balcony. It almost feels as if he wanted to celebrate Easter with Christians and Catholics around the globe, before he was ready to leave this earthly life.

This morning, the Mass at Our Lady Queen of Apostles Church was quite emotional. We were all quite sad and shocked. Father Norbert Fernandes, in his short homily, said something, which I think is really important; the role of the Pope is a difficult one. We should …

Tagged | 7 Comments

A Vision for a Sustainable NHS Workforce in Scotland

Scotland’s NHS is under immense pressure. In 2023–24, the service spent £358 million on agency and locum staff. A figure, while slightly down from its peak, remains 45% higher than it was five years ago in real terms¹.

This spending designed to plug short-term staffing gaps isn’t creating long-term solutions. It’s not building a workforce. It’s not improving staff morale. And most of all, it’s not sustainable.

What Scotland lacks is not funding — it is a plan. This vision, developed independently by the author, proposes one possible approach to achieving NHS workforce sustainability within existing budget limits.

A Cost-Neutral Strategy for Rebuilding the NHS Workforce

It is a practical, financially grounded vision for how Scotland could transition away from dependency on expensive short-term staffing and toward a more resilient, sustainable NHS workforce.

Tagged | 25 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

Trumpian chaos has dealt another blow to Ukraine.

The American president said that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He would bring peace to the region even before he was inaugurated.

Trump had a special bond with Vladimir Putin. The two men had chemistry and he could use it to the end war.

Zelensky meanwhile was a “dictator”. Ukraine started the war. Zelensky needed to sign over his country’s mineral rights to pay an inflated price for past help.

And then, Putin isacting unreasonably. He is sending in missiles and killing children when there is supposed to be a limited ceasefire. The Russian leader is stalling.

Then finally, on Friday—exactly one month after US and Russian teams gathered in Riyadh, Secretary of State Marco Rubio tells his European counterparts that Donald Trump has decided that talks are taking too long and he is considering pulling out of the negotiations that he initiated.

Ukraine is just another example of chaotically disjointed governance which is leaving the world’s leaders standing around scratching their heads in Trump’s destructive wake

Tariff Hokey Cokey

Liberation Day, tariffs on everything and everyone except Russia, Belarus and North Korea. No, tariffs off. No, tariffs still on China. No, tariffs off some goods from China.

America is committed to NATO, says Rubio. No, NATO is full of freeloading Europeans and we should exit the alliance as quickly as possible, says Vice President JD Vance.

Trump’s anti-woke ideology harnessed to his 19th century economic policies, short-termism and demand for instant solutions to complex problems has created a crisis of confidence in America and its position in the world. It has also created a vacuum for China to step into.

China traces its civilisation back nearly 5,000 years. The United States will next year celebrate its 250th birthday.

Short term planning for China is a decade. Long term is… well, forever.

Short-term planning for the United States is until the next mid-term congressional elections held every two years. Long-term is the presidential elections every four years.

Governments in China stay in power until the “Mandate of Heaven” falls from their shoulders. American governments last four, maybe eight years if they are lucky.

Chinese people have no experience of democracy. Like their governments they live in the present and think not of tomorrow but of a future well beyond tomorrow. They are the standard bearers of an ancient well-ordered and established civilisation

American people think of themselves as the standard bearers of democracy. Their society is thrusting, fast-moving, exciting and constantly changing at a sometimes exhausting pace.

Which of these two countries is best equipped to deal with the economic hardships that Donald Trump is inflicting on both of them?

A rock and a hard place

Tagged | 14 Comments

The Supreme Court Judgment will inspire more people to campaign for LGBT+ rights

Following the horrendous and mortifyingly scary Supreme Court judgment on the Equality Act, after a couple of days to breathe, look after and protect our trans and non-binary friends and colleagues, we are starting to talk to various colleagues to start a plan to challenge this outrageous decision. 

This judgment has not only created more inconsistency, confusion, and downright removal of  hard won trans rights but has landed several unintended consequences not only to the lives of trans men in particular, but actually to other key legislation where companies could with this judgment circumvent laws on equal pay for example. 

As we sit on the shoulders of giants, who have paved way for our own liberty, we have to do the same for generations to come and this is an opportunity not only to strike through the ridiculous Supreme Court  judgment removing trans women’s rights to be recognised as a women in all areas of life, but to legislate for third gender (non binary and intersex protections) formally and to eliminate any incongruous definitions between the Gender Recognition Act, and the Equality Act – essentially tidying up all the wording whilst not using any biological or gender critical terminology, 

As we all know, the passing of the excellent policy paper “Free to be who you are” from our equality spokesperson Christine Jardine at our recent Harrogate conference  gives us the means to challenge the Government, insist on clear guidance for trans and non binary people and to revise our laws to be trans and non-binary inclusive. 

As many Lib Dem Voice readers, will know – as an openly non binary person, this week has been incredibly stressful and sad, seeing friends and colleagues really suffer from the judgment on Wednesday. 

I understand why the party leadership has to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision, but it doesn’t have to endorse or accept it and be contrary to the party policy we passed so recently. I also acknowledge that we have exceptionally important local elections in two weeks, and we want to do well, but from LGBT+ Lib Dems perspective, as one of their Honorary Vice Presidents we need to see the party hierarchy recognise the anxiety and stress that this decision has had on its members and on LGBT+ folks who should be among our most natural supporters.

Tagged , and | 2 Comments

Observations of an ex pat – MAGA vs the Liberal Elite

Cometh the hour. Cometh the university. To be more specific, that bastion of American liberalism—Harvard.

The defeated Democratic Party is worse than useless. The lawyers are frightened of threatened retribution. The media are curbing their criticisms in face of mounting law suits. The courts are hard at work, but they take time and the ultimate legal arbiter — the Supreme Court — has a decided conservative bent.

However, Trump may have met his match in Harvard University. In America money talks. Harvard has money. A $53.2 billion endowment fund. This money is a shield against all the arrows — mainly financial — that Trump is raining down on them.

The reason for the attacks on Harvard and other Ivy League universities is alleged anti-Semitism on campus.In reality it is because Harvard—and most of the other American universities are citadels of open-minded, free-thinking, liberalism of the sort that has made America great. It represents everything that the current president opposes. As Trump publicly said: “I think Harvard is a disgrace”

The liberal elite of academia is a top target. If Trump can crush liberalism and force open the university doors to MAGA thinking then he will have changed America for generations. Harvard is America’s top university. If he can succeed there the others will follow.

To that end, Trump’s administration has written to the university with a list of demands to be met with the implied threat of further action if they are not. They include subjecting the university to government oversight of Harvard’s admission and hiring policies. The university must provide personal details of all foreign students, monitor their activities and report on those activities to a federal authority. Anything that smacks of DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) programs must end along with any criticism of Israel which the Trump Administration has conflated with anti-Semitism.

And finally, Harvard University must agree to the government approving the university curriculum to ensure that faculty are promoting “American values.” Exactly who decides what those values are is needlessly left unspoken.

Harvard–in polite legal terms– has refused to comply.

Tagged | 34 Comments

We have just entered a civil rights emergency

As the shockwave of Wednesday’s bombshell Supreme Court decision has landed, we are now seeing the rapid erosion of some civil liberties in the UK. Although the court’s decision itself ruled on a fairly narrow part of Equalities Law, we are now seeing huge confusion as people pore over the full implications of the ruling and some seem to capitalise to restrict the rights of trans people, without regard of the side effects on the wider LGBT community, or women.

We have now seen initial responses from people like the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Baroness Falkner, which appear to be taking a worst case interpretation of the ruling which does nothing but erode hard fought rights for trans people, claiming that we should be excluded from spaces we have existed in without issue for decades.

The British Transport Police have been fast off the mark to change their policies regarding strip searching of trans people. Male police officers can now strip search women if they believe they are trans (regardless of what genitalia that person might actually have). As a councillor I have seen officers in my council take weeks at the fastest to fully evaluate the impact of changes like this before introducing them, so find it impossible to believe that this policy has been introduced as a result of careful consideration of the implication of the ruling given the speed at which it has been done. It is clear that systemic transphobia remains embedded high in many public institutions, which are now rushing to bring in policies which harm vulnerable trans women.

I have no doubt that we will see more transphobic policies introduced under the guise of this ruling, rather than as a result of any careful consideration of the implication of it. These policies will hurt not only trans people, but be harmful for society in general as an erosion of liberty. Women in particular will be hurt by these decisions, shamefully championed by transphobic hate groups which masquerade as “women’s rights” campaigners, when inevitably authorities may make a judgement about their sex which turns out to be wrong. This has happened in the US through other trans-exclusionary definitions of women in bathroom bans. Legal recourse after the fact for redress is no compensation, and will remain open only to those with the pockets to fund it.

Tagged , , , , and | 10 Comments

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
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Pawel Urbanski
    David, thank you, and I am asking the same question. The opportunity is biggest in the seats where we face the Conservatives, where the economy comes up on the ...
  • David Raw
    @ Nick Baird Well said, Nick, especially in your last paragraph. Some things have changed a fair old bit since I first joined the Liberal Party way back in 196...
  • Nick Baird
    @Peter Martin - the point I tried to make above is that comparison isn't fair or reasonable. If that same individual eligible for £25k to £27.5k of benefits m...
  • Simon McGrath
    This is a tragic event with a terrible outcome for Dr Arday and his family. On the issue about plagiarism in Dr Arday's PhD, people can judge for themselve...
  • Hywel
    It seems to me that a bunch of people with racist intent went looking for a target until they found one with enough question marks that they could turn into a r...