Category Archives: Op-eds

Like a broken clock, even JD Vance can be right sometimes 

JD Vance’s critique of the liberal consensus at the Munich Security Conference touches on an uncomfortable truth: the liberal project, while achieving peace and prosperity on a global scale, has left many working-class communities behind. Economically, politically, and culturally, these groups feel abandoned, leading to resentment and distrust of the ideals that have propelled progress.

For decades, the liberal elite has prioritised building a brave new world, but in doing so, it neglected to build consensus with the people it sought to serve. Programmes designed to alleviate poverty or reduce inequality often came across as top-down mandates rather than collaborative efforts. While well-intentioned, they failed to engage the communities most affected, leaving many with the impression that they were receiving “handouts” rather than opportunities for self-sufficiency.

Many of the measures introduced – whether to address poverty, climate change, or inequality – stemmed from noble intentions and represented the best instincts of humanity. Yet they were often implemented without meaningful consultation with the electorate. 

The liberal tradition, at its best, is about empowerment. It is about giving individuals the tools to build their own futures, fostering both economic and personal dignity. Yet many of the programmes introduced in the name of progress – however noble – were perceived as undermining the very dignity they sought to preserve. 

For instance, work is more than a pay cheque; it is a source of status, respect, and identity. Lack of meaningful work has left people feeling invisible and devalued. And most people, in my experience, support diversity and equality, but the programmes to support these goals rings hollow for the the people who feel sidelined in their own community. 

Tagged , and | 11 Comments

Vince Cable writes…Standing up to Trump

I know from experience that leading the Liberal Democrats is a frustrating job; marginalised in the media and patronised by the two traditional parties. But periodically we hit on a message which resonates in the country, as with Charles Kennedy’s opposition to the Iraq war.  Ed Davey may have found another: ‘Stand up to Trump’. 

These are early days in the second Trump administration, but a political, economic and cultural revolution is under way. The MAGA movement is also much bigger than its capricious, unpredictable leader. Trump’s apostles like JD Vance and Hegseth are ideologically extreme but also articulate, smart and superficially plausible. And they regard Britain with contempt: our secular and liberal values; our diverse society; our democratically elected government. We need to understand that the sentimental nonsense about the ‘special relationship’ is over. We are under attack.

I have some sympathy for our government. Starmer is being understandably cautious recognising that there is much uncertainty and danger.  The resulting passivity has however created a leadership vacuum. The Tories and Reform vie to be mini-Trumps. They are also skirting around the edge of treacherous collusion with people who openly declare their wish to overthrow our legitimate government. Nor will leadership come from the lazy anti-Americanism of the far left which sees Trump as merely a cruder spokesman for American imperialism than Clinton or Obama.

Step forward the leader of the Liberal Democrats to provide a focal point for resistance. The fact that Ed Davey has attracted the abuse of Trump’s outrider, Elon Musk, is to his credit. Being described as a ‘snivelling cretin’ tells us less about him than about the deranged people who insult him: the MAGA folk who think that Tommy Robinson is the authentic voice of the British working class; that London is a Muslim city; and that ‘free speech’ has been outlawed in the UK. The irony of using ‘freedom’ as a dividing line with Britain appears to be completely lost on people whose idea of personal freedom is ownership of offensive automatic weapons, facilitating mass killings. As for the decadence and decay of Europe it pays to point out that, in Trump’s macho USA, male life expectancy is five years or so less than ours and less than in China or Ecuador.

But apart from firing verbal projectiles, what does ‘standing up to Trump’ look like?  Tariffs?  We will be dragged down like everyone else by a global trade war.  But in relation to Trump’s irrational obsession with bilateral trade balances, the UK is in the clear albeit with some minor quibbling about the statistics. Britain’s exports are, any event, skewed to services and other items which don’t carry tariffs. An exception is steel, and the remnants of this once great industry are set to take another beating. Outside the EU, Britain does not have the clout to retaliate, and, in any event, the Americans will point out that for British exporters to complain about tariffs is a bit rich since Britain unilaterally raised tariffs against itself when it left the EU customs union.

More reassuringly, the USA is no longer quite the power in world trade it once was, or Trump thinks it is.  The EU is the dominant power in trade in goods and services combined, China in goods. Though relatively declining, the US is still the world’s largest importer with around 15% of world imports narrowly ahead of the EU and China. It can damage its trade partners, as it clearly intends to do, but there is nothing to stop them trading more with each other. America, of course, runs big trade deficits.  It has the privilege of being able to consume disproportionately by issuing dollar IOUs (which may soon lose their appeal as a store of value). Trump’s particular genius has been an ability to translate this self-indulgence into victimhood. We have no reason to fuel this national self-pity.  We should ignore it; diversify away from the USA; re-build trading relationships with our European neighbours; and prioritise emerging markets including those that annoy the Americans as with China, Mexico and Vietnam. Hedging is the best response to uncertainty.

Tagged , , , , and | 34 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

It is becoming increasingly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and unfettered power is the American judicial system.

His spineless acolytes in the Republican Party control both houses of Congress and the geriatric Democratic Party appears to be sinking under a sea of Executive Orders.

The courts, however, have acted. So far they have ordered the administration to lift its funding freeze on USAID and the salaries of thousands of federal employees.

The question now is: What will Trump do? Legally, he should abide by the court’s ruling and—if he is determined to get his way—appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, where, he hopes, the 6-3 conservative majority will rule in his favour.

But that is not Trump’s way, and Supreme Court support is not a given.

The signs are that Trump will simply ignore the court rulings and either carry on and appeal or—even more likely—carry on and not bother to appeal. If he takes either approach Donald Trump will have created a major constitutional crisis.

The power of the judicial system relies on the two other branches of government respecting and accepting the court’s  judgements. It is called checks and balances and THE RULE OF LAW.

There is nothing in the US constitution which gives enforcement powers to the judiciary—except the legal principle of contempt of court.  If Donald Trump ignores court rulings then he can be held in contempt and detained or fined until such time as he “purges the contempt.”

This is not a criminal law. It is not a civil law. It is the only weapon that the courts have to enforce their judgements. It was used against Trump in 2022 when he was fined $10,000 a day for failing to provide subpoenaed documents in his fraud trial.

The same law could also be applied to Elon Musk and his DOGE team.

A person cannot be pardoned for contempt of court. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity does not apply to contempt of court. So, where is the brave judge willing to take on Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the MAGA  crowd?

Germany

As Germany’s federal election approaches the two front runners—the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Alternativ fur Deutschland (AfD) are battling for the young men’s vote.

Increasingly it is the 18-30-year-old men who are playing the kingmaker’s role in Western democracies. And they are swinging further and further to the right.

In the 2024 British general election, young men played a vital role in winning five parliamentary seats for Reform. 12.9 percent of men aged 18 to 30 voted Reform compared to just 5.9 percent of the women.

In the States it was disgruntled young men who dunnit for Trump. Sixty percent of the young male vote opted for Donald Trump, according to an Associated Press survey. Trump attracted only 20 percent of the women in the same age group.

Trump was especially popular with poorly educated young white men, but he also won half of the young male Latino vote and a third of the African-American young men.

In Germany the young male vote played a major role in the AfD winning 16 percent of the vote in the European elections and 31 percent of the vote in elections in Saxony and Brandenburg.

Tagged , , and | 13 Comments

ALDC’s by-election report – 13 February

There are 7 principal council by-elections held across England, Scotland, and Wales this week; with a combined of 3 Labour, 2 Lib Dem, 1 Conservative, and 1 Green Party defence. Seats changed hands left and right as only 2 out of 7 elections are successfully held by the respective parties. One of which is Lib Dem, who lost the other to Labour; and Labour, who lost their other seats to the Green Party and Reform. Meanwhile, the Tories lost their seat to the independents while gaining one from the Green Party. 

The headline win for the Lib Dems this week come from Stevenage BC, where Cllr Peter Wilkins in the Manor ward held the Lib Dem vote steady (more than majority!) while all other major parties’ vote collapse in the face of a new Reform candidate. Congratulations to Cllr Peter and the team for winning the seat!

Stevenage BC, Manor
Liberal Democrat (Peter Wilkins): 760 (55.6%, +0.1%)
Reform: 320 (23.4%, new)
Conservative: 139 (10.2%, -5.2%)
Labour: 101 (7.4%, -12.3%)
Green Party: 46 (3.4%, -6.0%)

In the other Lib Dem defence of the week. Marthos Christoforou managed to further grow the Lib Dem first preference votes in Kirkintilloch, North & Twechar of East Dunbartonshire Council, but still lost to Labour head-to-head in stage 7 of counting. This would have been an SNP seat if there was only one up for election in 2022: such is the quirk of the Scottish council elections. Well done and thank you to Marthos and the team for putting up a good fight.

East Dunbartonshire Council, Kirkintilloch East, North & Twechar (based on first preference votes, Labour elected at stage 7)
Labour: 958 (30.2%, +1.0%)
SNP: 726 (22.9%, -16.0%)
Liberal Democrat (Marthos Christoforou): 677 (21.3%, +2.6%)
Reform: 476 (15.0%, new)
Conservative: 131 (4.1%, -7.8%)
Green Party: 128 (4.0%, new)
Alba: 63 (2.0, new)
Sovereignty: 18 (0.6%, new)

One by-election held on Tuesday in Pembrokeshire CC also saw a great Lib Dem result, where Kaleb Jenkins managed to snatch over a quarter of the votes in Haverfordwest Prendergast and placing second despite no Lib Dem had stood in the previous election. The independents gained the seat from the Conservatives here. Thank you, Kaleb and the team, for putting the Lib Dems on the map in the ward, that’s how all our campaigns start!

Tagged and | Leave a comment

Observations of an Expat: Ukraine – Europe Missed A Trick

Europe has missed a trick. Ukraine was primarily a European problem. Russia was threatening European security, and by extension, the NATO alliance as a whole. But to most Americans the war in Ukraine, as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia—“is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

But America coughed up billions. That is not to say that European countries—including the UK—have not dug deep. Since 2022 Europe has given slightly more than the US – $65.9 billion compared to $65 billion from Washington. Another $8.59 billion has come from non-European countries Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

But the Biden Administration was far and away the single biggest contributor propping up Ukraine. With Trump in the White House that prop is likely to be kicked away—possibly as soon as this weekend’s Munich Security Conference.

Europeans admit that their over-reliance on the American military umbrella has made them complacent about their security. Since the end of the Cold War defense budgets have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. Germany, for instance was in 1985 spending 2.87 percent of its GDP on defense. When Russia invaded Ukraine the figure had been cut by more than half to 1.33 percent.

Budget cuts meant cuts in troop numbers. 478,000 (1985 figure) in Germany to 183,000 in 2022. Britain went from 334,000 to 153,000 over the same period.

But more importantly was a drop in investment in defense industries.  Troop levels can be boosted relatively easily. But researching the latest weapons, building a factory and assembly line and starting production takes time. 1985 figures for European investment in defense industries are difficult to find, but since the invasion of Ukraine there is a clear recognition that it was not enough. In 2021 the figure was $222 billion and in 2024 it had jumped to $330 billion.

Tagged and | 41 Comments

The real pandemic of today – loneliness

Overall, I am not too keen on TV. My children would often say that I am workaholic, I can’t sit still and I always have to be “on the go”. Any particular reasons why I don’t watch too much telly? Does it take too much of our time? Could it be better to simply, after a long day at work, to force ourselves to occupy our mind and intellect with a book or a short walk? I worry that TV as well as mobile phones take away too much of our own and family time.

Having said that, we all need at times a bit of “me” time, also in front of our screens. I love to watch football highlights, watch a game when possible, political bulletins and crime series. However, as I love traveling and I lived, apart from my native Poland, in Croatia, Italy and now the UK, I really enjoy watching geography programmes. There are plenty of them across all the main channels.

I have recently come across Ben Fogle’s: New Lives in the Wild. It is fascinating to see how people are able to adapt and live in some of the most remote locations across the globe. It is remarkable to see how they cope with isolation, and very little contact with “real civilisation”. I was struck by a comment from one of Ben’s guests, an Austrian priest, who is now living as a hermit in the Italian Alps. He said that he feels more connected with a very few of his neighbours than when he lived in a busy city. What a striking statement!

Because of work, for the last 3-4 years, I have been traveling a lot to London from Welwyn Garden City. Hundreds, thousands of people trying to get from A to B. The London underground has been my best friend for a while now. A typical passenger on the tube? Phone, IPad, rarely a book. Some people try to have a short nap before the next part of the daily challenge. Often, actually most of the time, there is no communication and no interaction between commuters. It might be incredibly sad that someone might be living in one of the most iconic cities on earth, surrounded by millions of people from every corner of the world and yet, feel so lonely. I am convinced that each person has most amazing and unique story to tell.

14 Comments

It’s time to practice what we preach

Headshot of Julian TandyIt’s not often a motion comes along to Federal conference that is actually about true Federalism. Federalism is a concept synonymous with the Lib Dems. We campaign for it at a national level and we practice what we preach when it comes to the internal organisation of the party. Or do we? There’s a motion coming to Harrogate conference in March which addresses this for candidates – and we are delighted that it points towards a much more progressive and federal approach to how the party operates..

As those responsible for overseeing the approval and selection of Westminster candidates in our respective States – Scotland and Wales – we added our names to support the motion (F10) to implement the lessons of the General Election Review.

You can read the candidates motion here.

For us, this motion is about three key things:

Getting Federalism right for the three States

It gives the three States an equal seat at the table when it comes to setting Westminster candidate selection rules and procedures. Rather than Scotland and Wales being treated as the poor relations expected to follow wherever England goes, all three States will have parity in decision-making, reflecting the views of our respective State committees in Joint State meetings to collectively decide the way forward. This is exactly how Federalism should work – State parity and democratic accountability to members through conference of our processes and procedures.

Diversity and equality

Tagged , , , , and | 16 Comments

We need to talk about the government’s AI plans

If you asked someone a few years ago which party formed a British government wanting to exempt AI firms from having to adhere to copyright laws  and joining the Trump government in refusing to sign an international declaration calling on AI to be, among other things, ethical, they would almost certainly have assumed it was a Conservative government, not a Labour one.

The reality is that that’s exactly what Keir Starmer’s Labour government is doing.

Both of these should be extremely concerning for us all, but for Liberal Democrats this should ring particular alarm bells.  The government seems intent to hand the majority of the value of the UK’s vital creative industries, estimated to be worth over £120 billion, to unaccountable US tech firms headed by the wealthiest men on the planet, with precious few safeguards for authors, artists, and creators.

Tagged and | 16 Comments

William Wallace writes: Spending Cuts or Tax Increases? Can we avoid the choice?

One of the oddest things about British and American politics is that it remains acceptable to politicians and right-wing commentators to call for cuts in overall taxation without specifying what cuts in spending programmes should accompany them.  After successive Republican Administrations in the USA that have cut taxes and then found it difficult to make comparable reductions in spending programmes, the Trump Administration is at least being ‘honest’ in publicly slashing major federal programmes – through dishonest in suggesting that tariffs will provide a generous new stream of revenue.  In the UK the Mail and the Telegraph, and the Conservative leadership, still attack every suggestion of higher taxation, as well as many proposals to squeeze current spending. 

The Labour Government boxed itself in before the election by promising not to increase the three largest sources of government revenue.  It over-emphasised the potential for returning to faster growth as a means of increasing revenue; and is therefore stuck with multiple crises in public services, while loading extra demands on Council tax in the hope that local Councils will share the blame. The impact of Trump on the global economy increases the obstacles to growth which we (and other countries) face.  Rachel Reeves is hinting at cuts, not only in welfare benefits but also in key public services and public investment.  So what should Liberal Democrats be saying if the government does delay infrastructure investment and squeeze key services?

Across the board, both the public investment needed to revive the UK economy and the public services which support our society are in acute crisis.  The Financial Times last week published a horrifying account of the physical state of some of the hospitals included in Boris Johnson’s unfunded rebuilding programme.  The UK spends much less on government support for research and development than many of its competitors.  The promised AI supercomputer (underfunded in Conservative treasury calculations) has been put on hold; financial support for Ph.D students in STEM subjects, crucial for future innovation, has been shrunk.  The state of Britain’s prisons, after years of under-investment and overcrowding, is appalling.  We have been promised an additional 6500 teachers for schools, but school budgets have not been increased enough to pay for the much-need pay increase for existing teachers, let alone to recruit more.  Similarly we have been promised more neighbourhood police and Community Support Officers, without yet the funding to keep them in place.  We all know that local governments are in desperate financial straits; that social care is a neglected area that is dragging the NHS down with it; and we need to increase our defence budget substantially.

Tagged , , , and | 40 Comments

Trump, Taxes & Tariffs

Those of us who know of Henry George and his “Single Tax” on land values may not know that he was also against tariffs. I didn’t until in 1998 I was appointed Chief Executive at the Henry George Foundation (HGF) of Great Britain and learned that it was part of a federation of such bodies called The International Union of Land Value Taxation and Free Trade (or “The IU” for short). The same year ALTER was founded to revive a Land Campaign in the Lib Dems.

I was reminded how George’s thinking linked tax and tariffs when reading a piece by Jonty Bloom in my favourite weekly journal The New European recently. 

I am neither an economist but it seems common sense that tariffs hurt the countries which impose them most. Bloom’s piece reminds us that the inter-war Great Depression was made far worse when America’s action in isolation to impose tariffs was met tit-for-tat by most other trading nations.

In contrast, Trump Mark 1’s tariffs post-2020 were largely ignored by the rest of the world and hence largely only affected America: more jobs were lost there than in countries hit by tariffs.

The reason, according to Professor Michael Gasiorek, is that tariffs raise the imposing county’s domestic price of imports of a product. This allows its domestic producers to increase their price to just below the newly raised price of the imports, assuming the importer doesn’t absorb the tariff. “Capitalist greed”, according to current logic, ensures that prices rise for consumers in the tariff raising country, thereby reducing spending power and/or causing inflation there. 

Tagged , , and | 18 Comments

Moving beyond tactical votes: Taking the fight to Labour – everywhere.

The following article is primarily concerned with how we approach Labour voters nationally and locally (outside Labour-facing seats). I have much respect for the many local parties, whether in Liverpool or Southwark, who have taken a strong fight to Labour and for whom much of the criticism here would not apply.

The 2019 and 2024 General Elections made one thing clear – parties cannot control tactical voting, only voters can, and their decision is circumstantial. The reason it worked in 2024 without alliances but failed in 2019 with pacts is because voters were ready to do it in the former and not the latter, our leaflets simply reminded them we were the best option in certain areas.

Almost all the leaflets targeted at Labour voters in target seats simply had previous results as a reason to vote for us, rarely providing any reasons to differentiate us from Labour. This was to avoid ‘offending’ Labour voters who could tactically vote for us, which was understandable, the persistence of this mindset, however, is not. Our dependence on a pure tactical voting message has left us with a chunk of unsustainable voters (YouGov Oct ’24), we saw how detrimental a reliance on borrowed votes can be with the collapse of the Conservative vote in the Red Wall. 

As the Conservatives continue to struggle with their national revival, often placing third in the polls, and Labour continues with unpopular decisions in government, the notion of tactical voting weakens more and more. A recent poll puts us within 11 percentage points of four other parties. This becomes a greater issue amongst younger generations who are so disillusioned with the establishment (a recent poll showed they’d prefer a dictatorship) that they are more likely to vote on values, not statistical probabilities – especially when those statistics show “this is how things have been in the past.” 

But it is not too late, we can still fully switch these voters to create a more sustainable base, but only if we have the courage to take the fight to Labour.

We must shake off the fear of offending Labour voters for three reasons.

Tagged , and | 8 Comments

Why populism thrives and how we beat it – Part 1

Britain is in crisis. The cost of living is spiralling, wages are stagnant, public services are collapsing, and trust in politics is at an all-time low. People feel powerless, ignored, and abandoned by those in charge. And when that happens, anger grows. Populists know this. They thrive on it. They don’t want to fix the problems; they want to exploit them. They fuel resentment, offering easy scapegoats and simplistic answers that sound good but solve nothing.

They tell people that migrants are stealing their jobs, that the NHS is broken because of bureaucracy, that the economy is failing because of a corrupt elite. Reform UK and the Conservatives both play this game, but they do it in different ways. Reform shouts about “taking our country back” while offering no real policies beyond shutting the borders and slashing taxes. The Conservatives, desperate to hold onto power, mimic Reform’s rhetoric, blaming migration for their own economic failures. Neither of them is interested in solutions. They want people to be angry because it keeps them in business.

It is easy to be angry. I understand why people are furious. They have been let down. They have been promised change again and again, yet nothing ever improves. But anger alone won’t fix Britain. It won’t shorten NHS waiting times or put money in people’s pockets. What we need is leadership that takes that anger and channels it into real action. If we want to defeat populism, we need to do it by delivering real results, not through fear-mongering or division.

Populists succeed when people feel like they have no control over their lives. They feed on frustration and convince people that only drastic, destructive action can change things. Reform UK wants to scrap Net Zero, pull Britain out of international agreements, and introduce a US-style immigration system that would choke businesses of the skilled workers they need. The Conservatives, rather than offering stability, now talk about legal migration caps and sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. These aren’t policies—they’re distractions. The only way to stop them is to address the root causes of their success—economic insecurity, public service decline, and political failure.

Fixing immigration with competence, not chaos

Tagged and | 10 Comments

Burns night: Celebrating Lib Dem Women

Earlier this week, we published Jenni Lang’s Reply to the Toast to the lassies given at the Edinburgh South Burns Supper.  We said we’d put up Andy Wiliamson’s original toast to which she was replying when we got it. So here it is. Enjoy.

“Thank you everyone for such a wonderful evening. Thank you to Rebecca for organising and for the team working for providing such wonderful service. 

So it has fallen to me to give the Toast to the Lassies this evening. 

I have to start with a confession. I am actually from England. 

That’s not the confession. The confession is that this is my first ever Burns’ night dinner. 

And I confess that I am not an expert in Burns’ poetry. When I first moved to Scotland, I thought ‘mice and men’ were the two main ingredients in haggis. 

I cannot, either, confess to being an expert on women. 

When Rebecca asked me to give this toast, she said they were looking for someone who knew as much about Burns as they did about women, so in that respect, she picked absolutely the right person. 

I would like it also stated on the record, that getting asked to give this toast is something of a poisoned chalice. 

For anyone desiring a political career, it’s quite a tightrope to be asked to walk. To stand in a room full of political women and make jokes about gender differences, armed only with a book of quotes from an eighteenth century farmer. 

So the bar to success in this speech is to make jokes, talk about poetry, and avoid being cancelled. 

Still, in reading Burns, it’s very clear that many of his ideas about women are universal, as are his ideas on politics. Reading some of his poems, it was striking how the world he was describing is not much different from the world of 2025. In the Rights of Women, for example, he says: 

“While Europe’s eye is fix’d on mighty things,

The fate of empires and the fall of kings;

While quacks of State must each produce his plan,

And even children lisp the Rights of Man;

Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,

The Rights of Woman merit some attention.” 

Burns understood – like the proto-Lib Dem that he was – that everything has to be in balance. However, he got a key detail wrong. The opposite of the Rights of Women isn’t the Rights of Man. 

I’m speaking from personal experience here as a married man with two small children. I can personally attest that on occasions I have tested the boundaries of what my wife will put up with. 

Whether it’s telling her that – after a long General election campaign, a Council by-election requires me almost immediately to be away from home in the evenings again. Or times when I’ve stayed in the pub a little later than I probably should have.   

In those instances, it’s very clear that the opposite of Women’s Rights is Men’s Wrongs. 

Tagged , , and | Leave a comment

The speech Ed Davey should have made on the EU

This is the speech Ed should have made on the EU

Hats off to Ed Davey for calling for an EU/UK customs union. Last month’s call rightly attracted media attention, and amounts to the first step towards the Lib Dems re-establishing ourselves as Britain’s most pro-European party.

As a signatory to the Guardian letter in November 2023 which called on the party leadership to make a clearer statement about what the Lib Dems stand for, I give credit to Ed for his EU speech. But he should have gone much further, and framed our party’s position differently. That may sound like an extreme position – after all, leaders have to tread cautiously and take people with them – but let me explain why last month’s stance was too tentative.

All political parties are trying to carve out an identity for themselves against a backdrop of disenchantment that is fuelling populism. In particular, the 18-35 age cohort, which strongly voted Remain, feels no-one speaks for it. It therefore needs an inspiring message, one that is relayed in human, not technocratic, terms.

The case against Brexit is so clear that there are only one-and-a-half reasons not to call for the process of Britain to rejoining the EU to start right now. The main reason is that there was so much divisiveness around the referendum campaign (and afterwards) that everyone is understandably keen to avoid reopening old wounds. But old wounds that have not healed only fester, so the rapprochement with Europe must include an acknowledgement that people are still sore. More importantly, in pursuing that rapprochement we must try to take Leave voters with us – whether they wish they had voted differently or not, they must feel respected, not feel they have lost face.

The half-reason is the fear that going back into the single market will stoke immigration. It’s a valid reason because immigration is high on voters’ concerns, so anything that looks like increasing the number of people entering the UK has the potential to boost support for the populists. But it’s only half a reason because immigration has gone up since we left the EU, not down.

Also posted in Europe / International | Tagged , and | 10 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

Germany

Germany’s Friedrich Merz is gambling big. The leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is gambling with the upcoming elections, his political career, his country’s future and Europe’s future.

He is gambling that by opening—ever so slightly—the door to the German far-right that he will be able to slam it shut again after winning elections on February 23.

Ever since the end of the Second World War the mainstream political parties have maintained a firewall (or “Brandmauer”) between themselves and any far-right, neo-Nazi party that might undermine the political consensus that Germany maintain a sense of contrition for its Nazi past.

In recent years that has meant no coalitions, no deals, no talk of parliamentary support with the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).

Merz blew a hole in the Brandmauer at the end of January when he used AfD votes in the Bundestag to push through the first reading of an anti-immigration bill.  The “Influx Limitation Law” would have tightened existing immigration laws and grant police powers to detain people due for deportation and to deport immigrants at the border.”

The move provoked a stern protest from Merz’s predecessor, elder statesperson Angela Merkel. “I consider it wrong,” she said in a statement, “to abandon this commitment (the firewall) and, as a result to knowingly allow a majority vote with AfD votes in the Bundestag for the first time.”

The vote also sparked off a series of anti-AfD and pro-immigration demonstrations over the weekend.

The result was defeat for the bill at its second reading this week as 12 members of Merz’s own party voted against him.

Merz was unrepentant and has vowed even tougher anti-immigration laws if he wins the election. At the moment his party is predicted to win 30 percent of the vote. The AfD is projected to secure the number two slot with 20 percent of the vote while the opposition coalition of the Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals is likely to come in third with 29 percent.

Merz is gambling that his politics will steal some of the AfD’s far-right clothes and push up his share of the vote. But he also risks losing the centrist votes that were secured by Angela Merkel’s moderate positions. And his defeat at the second reading undermines Merz’s leadership of the CDU and runs the risk of pushing Germans concerned about immigrants into the arms of the AfD.

Europe

“Europe,” Trump recently warned, “you are next.”

The newly-elected American president was referring to those “lovely, lovely tariffs” that he is imposing left, right and centre, especially on those who dare to disagree with him.

Trump has never liked the EU. With half a billion reasonably well-off people, it is the world’s largest trading bloc, and trading bloc’s exist to protect the economic interests of their members, and they use the leverage that their size gives them to negotiate the best possible trading terms.

Tagged , , and | 7 Comments

The Full Council meeting and finding a purpose in political life

Although it is tough at times, I still really enjoy my role as a Councillor. It is not easy to combine it with my full-time job, all the other commitments, which include the hardest role of all, being a parent.

It is such a privilege to hold any public office. Being able to serve the community, try to act and make it a better place for everyone, is a blessing and I treat it with enormous respect. However, I suppose like many of my colleagues, there are moments, when I question myself and wonder whether it would be better to give it all up, do something else as the opportunities to make a difference can be achieved in so many ways.

This week, on Monday night, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillors were discussing the budget, which is always a difficult subject, particularly now when the public finances are under a lot of pressure. Where to save? What else could be done to make the work of the Council more efficient? How can we all contribute to a meaningful debate without scoring cheap political points? Often, these are meetings, which I often struggle with the most. How genuine are we when making these decisions? How often do we reject an idea, only because it might be coming from opposite benches? Do we really try to collaborate when it matters most?

Although the budget has been set this week, the Council had to make a lot of painful decisions, some of which are driven by national legislation. No one wants to see cuts to services or reduction in local provision. However, I am pleased that Monday night felt “civil”. I bumped into the Council Officer during the week, who said that he found the debate pleasant and relatively productive. I actually felt that for the first time in quite a while, we actively listened to each other. We had a constructive discussion about Council finances. I am also happy that we were able to challenge our positions and scrutinise our legislative ideas.

Tagged | 1 Comment

Observations of an Expat: Death of the Two-State Solution

The two-state solution is dead. Or, at the very least, it has been reduced to the one and a half state solution. But then the other Palestinian half is likely to be killed off in the next few weeks.

The concept of a Jewish and Palestinian state living side by side cannot work without American backing. No other state has the international clout or sufficient leverage over Israel.

The Palestinian state was envisaged as existing in two distinct halves—the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Donald Trump’s proposal that the US take control of Gaza, move out all the Palestinians, bulldoze it and turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” means that the US has in one press conference eliminated the Gazan half from the political equation.

The other half is expected to soon follow suit. Trump has promised a statement on the West Bank “in a matter of weeks.” In his first term he declared Israeli settlement was no longer—in his opinion—a breach of international law. He also recognised Jerusalem—which is part of the West Bank—as the capital of Israel. In his second term he quickly lifted Biden-imposed sanctions on violent Israeli West Bank settlers.

It is extremely likely that he will announce approval of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-held wish to annex the West Bank. That means an estimated 5 million Palestinians would be forced out of their homes. Where do they go?

“They should go to new homes,” said President Trump. “Someplace where they live and not die.” Specifically, the president has suggested Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and possibly Saudi Arabia. They have all responded with an emphatic: “No way!!!”

Tagged , and | 17 Comments

Nimbyism: direct participatory democracy in action

On Saturday 1 February, scores of people in the West Yorkshire town of Sowerby Bridge attended a protest rally against a proposed small waste incinerator plant for commercial use. The proposal was approved by Calderdale Council last November despite the previous application having been overturned via judicial review and the granting of the permit overturned by the High Court.

If the incinerator were to be constructed, it would have myriad detrimental effects upon the immediate community. With Sowerby Bridge situated in the Calder Valley, the proposed stack’s height of 96 metres would mean that pollutants would be emitted at the same level as surrounding communities at higher altitudes and the tree canopy of ancient woodland. And as the incinerator is due to be constructed on the bank of the River Ryburn, the site may fall victim to flooding, as was witnessed by Sowerby Bridge in 2015.

Local residents understand the dangers that the incinerator would pose to their community which is why they came out in force. This is not a partisan issue. In addition to Liberal Democrat councillors (and the former Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Ashley Evans and Sue Holdsworth, the rally was attended by representatives of the Green Party and the National Education Union. Despite approval being given by a Labour-controlled council, Labour figures such as Cllr Simon Ashton of Sowerby Bridge and Halifax MP Kate Dearden spoke out against the proposal.

Nimbyism is often derided as simple obstructionism, motivated by a gainsay resistance to change or a desire not to jeopardise a privileged situation. Prime examples of this would be denying the building of new houses or renewable energy infrastructure to prevent a fall in property values.

However, the cry of ‘not in my backyard’ can easily be made against proposals that would have clearly deleterious impacts upon local communities, as can be argued with the Sowerby Bridge incinerator or fracking or nuclear waste repositories.

Tagged | 18 Comments

Why the Liberal Democrats Should Champion a CANZUK Alliance

As a Liberal Democrat and someone deeply invested in international cooperation, I believe the concept of CANZUK—strengthening ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK—deserves serious consideration within our party. This isn’t just about nostalgia for a shared past; it’s about unlocking practical, forward-thinking opportunities that align with our values of internationalism, economic prosperity, and human rights.

I want to explore how a CANZUK alliance could benefit the UK and why the Liberal Democrats should be leading the conversation on this issue.

Economic Growth and Trade Expansion

One of the most compelling reasons for strengthening CANZUK ties is the economic potential. The combined GDP of these four countries exceeds $7.5 trillion, making them a formidable economic bloc. Unlike many existing trade agreements, a CANZUK trade partnership would be built on a foundation of mutual trust, shared legal systems, and compatible regulatory standards.

Post-Brexit, the UK needs to reimagine its place in global trade. While we should maintain strong ties with Europe, there is also an opportunity to build new economic relationships with countries that share our language, governance structures, and business culture. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand already have strong trade ties with one another, and deepening our involvement in this network could create fresh opportunities for UK businesses.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) would benefit the most from easier access to new markets. If we establish streamlined trade agreements with these nations, businesses could export their goods and services with fewer tariffs and bureaucratic hurdles. The Liberal Democrats have always championed policies that help small businesses thrive, and a CANZUK trade partnership would do just that.

Freedom of Movement and Talent Exchange

Another major pillar of the CANZUK proposal is the free movement of people between the four countries. This could be a transformative policy, allowing UK citizens to live, work, and study in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with fewer restrictions.

Tagged , and | 11 Comments

Never let the con merchants off the hook

“You must not tell people that they have been conned” appears to be an assumption among many politicians.  However buyer’s remorse is clearly settling in with regard to Brexit and it remains to be seen how long it takes before Republican voters begin to feel the pain that they never contemplated during November’s US election campaign.

It is worth remembering that none of us gets through life without being fooled by somebody. Our most recent experience was with the bunch of cowboys who moved house for us last year. It all happened because the people who did well for us in the previous move appear to have shunted us on to another outfit who were part of a series of mergers and franchise operations. We were far too trusting.

A long time ago when I lived behind a door that was often knocked on by low-level conmen asking for money, I steadily learned to suss out the frauds and my ultimate triumph was when I said to one “Let’s cut out the crap and I’ll take you round to the pub and buy you a pint.” He was so shocked that he beat a hasty retreat and was never seen again. Perhaps we need a bit more sideways thinking when dealing with political fraudsters!

Of course being had makes you feel stupid. What you need is not blame but sympathy and support. Being mealy mouthed about the perpetrators simply leaves them to take their conmanship to another level. In western democracies, if you want to fool a majority of voters you have to fool an allegedly serious political party first. Then you need a coalition of people who might vote for you for a whole variety of reasons. Appeals to some of the worst elements of human nature can seal the deal for some. Both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson did their bit towards making serial lying legitimate. Some people wished they could “get away with what he gets away with”. There is an element of envy here which is a bit like people living in poverty not having a problem with millionaires – a sentiment that is nurtured by large chunks of the gambling industry.

7 Comments

Celebrating our Lib Dem men

One of the social highlights of Lib Demmery in Edinburgh is the Edinburgh South Burns Supper, an annual evening of mirth celebrating Scotland’s national Bard Robert Burns.

Previous highlights include, and I kid you not, Alex Cole-Hamilton, dressed as a mouse acting out the part as To a Mouse was read out.

The evening usually starts with the top table being piped in. Then we have the address to the Haggis. The “great chieftain of the pudding race” is piped in and, this year, Rebecca Wright gave a spirited rendition of Burns’ To a Huggis. I’m a bit of a heretic here because I much prefer white pudding to haggis, but never mind.

There are three main speeches in the traditional Burns Supper. The Immortal Memory is a personal tribute to Rabbie Burns, this year delivered by Susan Murray our new MP for Mid Dunbartonshire who had found out that she had a distant relationship to Burns.

The Toast to the Lassies at Burns Suppers used to basically be a riot of misogyny. In fact, at one time the only women allowed near a Burns Supper were the ones serving the food. In modern times, however, the Toast and its reply (now made by a woman) has become genuine comedy.

The Toast to the Lassies was made by Andy Williamson. He has said that he’ll send it over and when he does, I’ll put it up.

The reply was delivered by Scottish Party Convener Jenni Lang and it celebrated the men in our party who she had loosely divided into four general categories. She’d really like your help in identifying some more. Her speech is reproduced here with her permission.

I actually had to go before she started speaking or I’d have missed my train home so I read this for the first time on Monday and laughed so much I feared for my ribs. I found myself categorising my friends who were there. This includes Jenni’s husband Kevin, whom I am sure many of you will know.

Anyway, enjoy, and please feel free to add some more. But remember this is a celebration of our colleagues. Be as generous and funny as Jenni has been.

Good Evening, and firstly, thank you so much to Andy for his kind words, and thank you for inviting me to make the reply of behalf of the lassies tonight.

I have been giving a great deal of reflection over the past week to what I would say tonight in response to the laddies in the room. I realised that this year will be my 25th anniversary of becoming involved with the party. In that quarter of a century, I have been a member of staff, seen us be part of two different Government coalitions with varying success. I’ve sat on committees, chaired committees, and now I’m Convener of the party. 

And I started thinking about the types of Liberal Democrat men I have met over the years, and I realised, that there were some distinct groupings that many of these men fall into, tribes if you like. Or if I was channelling my inner Meghan Markle right now, archetypes….

So I thought tonight I would highlight a few of my favourite Lib Dem male archetypes. Now, this isn’t an exhaustive list because I only have a few minutes. But ladies, you can feel free to add more later.

First up…..

The Liberal Gentlemen

I have a very soft spot for this group of men. The elder statesmen of the party. The ones who originally joined the Liberal Party long before the merger and who, even now, only begrudgingly accept the fact we still have those pesky Social Democrats hanging around. Always polite, unfailingly charming, deeply liberal to their core.

These gentlemen can still remember bringing more chairs into the Liberal Assemblies of yore. They have an elephantine memory of the history of the party and will happily pass on this knowledge to all who will listen. 

The song ‘Lloyd George knew my father’ was not so much written for them….but more written for their children written for them, and one or two of them may have met Lloyd George themselves!

We often talk about national treasures, these gentlemen are our Party Treasures, often the Party Treasur-ers making them one of my favourite archetypes. 

Next up…..

The Policy Geek 

Yes, the policy geeks. They may have a niche issue they are keen to get through as party policy. Even better if it gets into the  manifesto. Maybe they have personal obsession with nuclear proliferation, or decriminalising drugs, or protecting bees, or the structural funding of local authorities to tackle potholes. 

These are the guys who will dedicated their time to causes which would likely result in a march and with with a mantra – “What do we want? An asymmetrical of federalism. When do we want it? – in due course!

They are the people who keep the party’s policy gears ticking over, and without some of their far out proposals, conference would just be a slew of top down edicts from the leadership. And as Liberals, none of us want that.

A sub grouping of the Policy Geek is the  Party Constitutional Wonk, which is even more niche. Vitally important to the correct functioning of the party, but can be irritating when they point out that whatever you are trying to get done is constitutionally unsound. 

They are the detail guys. The ones who can tell you exactly what is in Section K, paragraph 2….without even having the constitution in front of them. The ones who would put in an amendment at conference to say ‘On line 42 delete ‘ampersand’ and replace with the word ‘and’’.  And yes friends, that’s a true story….

The constitutional wonks, are the next level – they are the upper class who look down on the mere policy geeks. As someone who regularly chairs conference debates, there is occasionally a heart stopping moment when one of these guys rises in their seat saying ‘Point of order chair’ before invoking a niche part of the standing orders. Irritatingly they are often right.

What I would say is that these wonks can be particularly effective in council chambers in using the standing order process to derail mad motions. So I can highly recommend you putting one or two up as council candidates, and they can really scratch that itch in a way that is helpful.

Next, the one that no local party can do without….

The Local Hero

Now, every local party has, or should have a local hero. Someone who really – perhaps showing the ultimate wisdom – has no interest in ever getting elected, but who turns out to every action day, or on canvassing sessions. Maybe they get stuck into office clerical work, printing and distributing leaflets to deliverers. They are readily identifiable by constantly smelling of riso ink. They are the backbone of our party and we could not function without them. 

Tagged , and | 5 Comments

Abuse victims to get chance of legal redress

Today I’m proud of the work I have been doing for the unheard, marginalised ignored and abused members of our society. Read on.

During the last few years I have admired the work of Shirley Oaks Survivors Association (SOSA).

They represented hundreds of people who were abused whilst in the care of Lambeth Council.

SOSA was able to get over £140m from Lambeth Council in compensation paid to those affected by the Shirley Oaks abuse scandal.

I sat and listened to the stories of those affected by sexual abuse. A friend of mine told me at the age of 35, that he was abused by one of our teachers at school, one by one others came forward. I felt pig sick that I never knew anything about it. They suffered in silence.

I was determined that people who committed crimes like this should not hide any longer.

Working with SOSA in their endeavour to get the 3 year time bar status lifted was time consuming, however, made easier by knowing that perpetrators could no longer hide behind the three year rule.

Those police officers involved in avoiding justice and the families who were kept out of the Lambeth legal redress scheme can now have their day in civil court.

Whilst I must thank the hard work of Dr Raymond Stevenson & Ms Lucia Hinton of SOSA, it has been a cross Party affair.

The agenda is not pretty or fashionable, a lot of people stay clear of it, however, when you know close friends who have been abused and not been able to communicate it to you for over 20-25 years it focuses your mind.

I must also thank other people that made this ground breaking day happen:

Tagged , and | 16 Comments

Introducing Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine

Lib Dems with an eye on recruitment may have spotted an interesting new job ad in circulation:  Public Affairs, Communications and Administration Officer for the Lib Dem Friends of Palestine. So, who are the Lib Dem Friends of Palestine (LDFP), what do we do, and in what ways could Lib Dems help make a difference now for Palestinians and a political crisis that has threatened global stability for so many decades?

LDFP was founded some 20 years ago for all party members interested in supporting justice for Palestine. We believe that the Palestinian people have the right to live in an independent state of Palestine, just as the Israeli people have the right to live in the independent state of Israel, based on the 1967 borders. To achieve that, Israel must end its illegal occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. We call on all party members to support this aim, both in principle and by the actions we take, and we actively lobby for it within Parliament and in the wider political sphere.

The principles behind this position align with the core values of the Liberal Democrat Party, namely liberty, equality, democracy, community, human rights and internationalism. We believe support for the aspirations – and rights – of the Palestinians is a very natural fit and sits well with our work with our liberal allies worldwide in calling for justice and peace for the Palestinian people.

We also recognise Britain’s special historic relationship with, and assurances given, to Palestine and the Palestinians. We believe this gives our country a particular responsibility to recognise a Palestinian state, to stand by the rights of its people and strive for a peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Tagged , and | 12 Comments

Standing firm: defying Trump’s tariff war and protecting our allies

Yesterday morning, I woke up to the stark reality that Donald Trump has once again shot himself in the foot, imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and potentially the European Union. This move is a clear sign that Britain, despite the naïve optimism of some on the far-right or within the Reform Party, will not be spared. In the long run, we too will face tariffs, and we risk becoming a client nation under Trump’s empire-like vision of America. Unfortunately for Trump, he seems to idolize the likes of Caligula, the Roman emperor who waged war against the sea. I’m surprised he hasn’t sent his armies to conquer the ocean yet.

Britain, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and other sovereign nations must now band together and stand firm against this kind of bullying. We cannot allow even an inch of European land to fall under the influence of American tariffs and policies. We must not let Canada, our steadfast ally, become the 51st state of the United States. We must empower our colleagues in Canada and stand by their side.

As free, sovereign countries that cherish liberal democracy, we do not undermine each other. We do not bow down to bullies. If Donald Trump and his supporters wish to shape America into a nation more tolerant of far-right ideologies, then so be it. But we will not be bullied by countries that, while influential, are taking a dangerous path.

Tagged | 11 Comments

New Zealand and proportional representation: what there is to learn from it, and what there isn’t

The debate on proportional representation in the Commons last Thursday was all fairly predictable, with few Conservatives bothering to turn up, and Labour MPs as likely to defend first past the post as not, but it was interesting that while several speakers mentioned the experience of other countries, usually in apocalyptic tones like Israel, none mentioned New Zealand.

In an article for the politics.co.uk website in 2023, Tim Bale, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London, once a New Zealand voter himself, advised advocates of proportional representation in the UK to manage their expectations of it; namely that if they think it will benefit the Liberal Democrats, they should think again, if New Zealand’s experience is anything to go by.

The problem with this is that comparing New Zealand to the UK is not really comparing like with like. Granted, New Zealand is a Commonwealth common law Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, but it is much smaller in population, with a much smaller parliament even for its size, and a single-chamber one at that; few remember that an upper house, the appointed Legislative Council, existed before 1950, the only purpose its chamber now serves is for MPs, summoned by Black Rod from the House of Representatives, to attend the Speech from the Throne.

Tagged and | 22 Comments

Defending democracy in a rapidly changing world

I hate to admit it; but I am becoming increasingly obsessed and weirdly fascinated, at the same time, with the happenings in the USA. At my time of life it can’t be good for my health! I know I ought to be more concerned about what is happening over here; but knowing how much we in the West depend, for better or for worse, on an outward looking magnanimous USA and knowing also how vulnerable the U.K. is as a minnow in a pool dominated by a few powerful sharks, I fear for our democratic system’s future as the drip …

20 Comments

Welcome to my day: 3 February – “this is all going to end in tears, isn’t it?”

Our Foreign Affairs Editor, Tom Arms, must be wondering whether or not he should be writing more than just a weekly column at the moment, as the American experiment with destroying its own government and the international world order at the same time unwinds. Levying 25% tariffs on your closest neighbours on the premise that they are failing to prevent fentanyl from crossing their borders into the United States, when just 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the northern border in 2024, merely makes it clear that this is intended to be a “punishment beating” for the “uppity Canadians” in particular. And given that the Mexican Government has been working with its American counterparts to reduce illegal migration with some success, you wonder what the Trump administration actually expects Mexico to do.

Rory Stewart makes the interesting point that, if Trump and his minions are going to tear down the network of international agreements and treaties because they can, how can any other nation hope to rely on the 800-pound gorilla that is America. And, perhaps more to the point, how can a Starmer-led Labour administration seriously countenance a trade deal with the United States given that Trump has now torn up his second North American Free Trade Agreement in eight years, the second of which he signed himself?

It does make Ed Davey look more and more like a prophet every day, even if Starmer, Reeves and Cooper all make a great show of denying him.

Tagged | 7 Comments

Poverty and inequality? Not apparent priorities for this Labour government

However,  our party is committed to poverty reduction by our Constitution and our policies. So it was good to hear that Deputy Leader and Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper has spoken out not only about the depth of poverty left by the Conservative Government but also the inadequacy so far of our Labour Government’s approach to it. 

She has stated:

This deep poverty is a scar on the nation made by the Conservative party, but the Labour government has so far just sat on its hands.

She highlighted the Government’s refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap as well as the winter fuel pay cut for thousands of pensioners. 

She could say much more, and hopefully will press the theme. The latest report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on poverty in Britain finds that relative child poverty rates are projected to rise this year, from 30.8% in England to 31.5%, and in Wales from 32.3% to 34.4%. Moreover, the JRF chief executive Paul Kissack was quoted in Wednesday’s Guardian as stating

 “Any credible child poverty strategy must include policies to rebuild the tattered social security system” 

Our party has recognised the need, stating on page 51 of our 2024 Manifesto  our intentions to:

  • Tackle child poverty by removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap
  • Set a target of ending deep poverty within a decade, and establish an independent commission to recommend further annual increases in Universal Credit to ensure that support covers life’s essentials, such as food and bills.
  • Support pensioners by protecting the triple lock so that pensions always rise in line with inflation, wages or 2.5% – whichever is the highest.

There is much more, some of which is set out on page 52. Such as, ‘Scrapping the bedroom tax and replacing the sanctions regime with an incentive-based scheme to help people into work.’

Tagged , and | 34 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

Lost in the blizzard of President Trump’s presidential decrees was the throwaway line that he plans to build an Israeli-style “iron dome” over the United States.

There are problems with such an ambition. For a start, the United States is 50 times bigger than Israel. Next problem is that Israel’s iron dome protects against drones, artillery attacks and short to intermediate-range missiles. Any American system would have to add long-range hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles to that list.

Next is the cost. Israel’s iron dome is estimated to cost $4-5 billion a year. Using the same technology, an American iron dome would cost about $120 billion. At the moment America’s entire missile defense budget is $29 billion and the total defense budget for 2025 is projected to be $852.3 billion.

The above figures are for a ground and sea-based iron dome. One of Trump’s greatest first-term boasts was the creation of the US Space Force (USSF). The force is 8,400-strong and under the command of General John Raymond. It would seem likely that Trump would want his USSF to at least contribute to the proposed iron dome.

This would involve basing satellites in space which would be armed with laser guns and kinetic missiles. There would also have to be a huge fleet of satellites based over enemy territory to spot missile launches. The advantage of a space-based system would be that the missiles could be intercepted before they reach US territory.

The disadvantages are that it would likely be construed as a breach of the 1967 UN treaty on Outer Space which prohibits the basing or use of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space. There is also the problem of the price tag—an estimated $1 trillion.

But a space-based system cannot do the job alone. Some missiles will inevitably sneak past the laser guns. For protection against them there will need to be a complementary ground-based system as well.

Gaza

Trump is nothing if not stubborn. You could also say obstinate, inflexible, mulish, or, if you want to be kind, persistent.

His suggestion that the Gazan Palestinians be relocated in brand new homes somewhere in Jordan and/or Egypt is the latest manifestation of the first administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” programme which was negotiated by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Kushner’s January 2020 plan did not explicitly call for the resettlement of Palestinians. But it hinted that the US would provide financial incentives for them to move– $50 billion over ten years. But where? Kushner privately proposed Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. But before publishing those thoughts he contacted the leaders of those countries and was told: “No way!!!”

Resettlement of Palestinian refugees is not a new idea. It is, literally, as old as the founding of the modern state of Israel. David Ben-Gurion proposed it almost as soon as the Israeli flag was first raised. Others who have resurrected it periodically over the past 76 years include: John Foster Dulles, John Bolton, Ariel Sharon, Leader of Lebanon’s Phalange Party Bashir Gemayel, Menahem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu, all of Israeli’s far-right religious leaders and even an Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said.

Each time the suggestion has been raised it has been knocked down by the Palestinians and the wider Arab world. For them it has always been a non-starter

Jordan has historically been touted as the most likely home for resettled Palestinians. This is because the British Mandate included the present-day Jordan and Israel. After the 1948 war a number of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan and were granted Jordanian citizenship. Currently about 50-70 percent of Jordan’s citizens are classified as Palestinian. But problems arose in the late 1960’s when the PLO used Jordan as its main base for guerrilla attacks on Israel. The Israelis responded in kind.

The result was that in 190-71, Jordan’s King Hussein expelled the PLO in what became known as “Black September.” Palestinians are welcome in Jordan, but not those that would antagonise Israel as many who are currently in Gaza and the West Bank might do.

As for those in Gaza and the West Bank, their views were forcefully expressed, by displaced Gazan Abu Yahya Rashid. “We are the ones who decide our fate and what we want,” he said. “This land is ours and the property of our ancestors throughout history. We will not leave it accept as corpses.”

Palestinians and Gazans are holding out for the two-state solution. Once again, Trump is consistent—this time in his opposition to what every other western country supports.  The 2020 Peace to Prosperity plan proposed only a fragmented Palestinian state with limited sovereignty. The Palestinians rejected it. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s newly-appointed evangelical ambassador to Israel, has taken a step further than Kushner. “There will never,” he insisted, “be a Palestinian state.”

United States air crash

Tagged , and | 5 Comments

Flick Rea MBE – a 50 year case study in sociable campaigning and creating a sustainable local party.

On Thursday night the Liberal Democrats in the London Borough of Camden gathered to celebrate 50 years of Party Membership of Flick Rea, former councillor, Alderwoman of Camden, London Region staffer and much more besides.

My own small role in the Flick Rea story is now a piece of history, reaching back to the halcyon days of 2006 when we were able to take on the Leadership of Camden Council and the two General Election of 2005 and 2010. Those three elections worked well for us and  for the first time we were able to mobilise our members, our resources, our messages, but also critically our enjoyment in the Liberal Democrat campaign to deliver some sensational election results.

As I arrived at The Sherriff Centre on Thursday night  I was greeted by some of the longest serving members in the Camden Local Party. As I took off my coat and looked around the large room, it was clear that this was not just any old party. Lord Mark Pack, Baroness Sue Garden, Lord Chris Rennard and then a catalogue of campaigners: Chris Naylor now of Shropshire, Alexi Sugden now of Lymington, John and Nana Bryant now of Harrow, James King now of Lewes, Mark and Janet Cumins of Queens Park, Bridget Fox of Islington, Terry Stacey from the LGA. The Camden diaspora had truly gathered to celebrate with and honour their friend and colleague Flick Rea.

Now anyone who has run or been involved with a Local Party they will know there are the accounts, the leaflets, the meetings and the minutes and then there are the social events and fundraising. In Camden the emphasis is very firmly placed on the social events being first and foremost. Under the guidance, tutelage and organisational rod of Flick Rea and her team, the priority always appears to be cake and coffee, and this is soon followed up with further cake options, a full platter of savouries and lashings of main course choices. By example, the annual Champagne Breakfast itself indicates that this is not your every day Local Party event.

So why does this socialising matter so much to Flick and her team. In an approach that reaches back to the Camden Liberal Party of the 1960’s, socialising and enjoying the campaign has always been important. Indeed that was clear last night when some of the catering team such as Jill Newbrooke traces their activism to the 1960’s Grimond Revival. Camden has created an important understanding of social affairs that underpins their whole campaign approach. The catering operation is highly sociable and draws people together working in confined kitchen spaces. Catering, as has been long known, is without a doubt the most profitable of all fundraising when done well, indeed good quality food on the campaign trail will often lead to higher gratuitous donations in the bowl in the middle of the leaflet table.

Tagged , , , and | 1 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...