Category Archives: Op-eds

Daniel Duggan

What next for the Liberal Democrats?

By Daniel Duggan | Mon 29th July 2024 - 5:55 pm

Recently, I have been reading ‘Jo Grimond: Towards the Sound of Gunfire” by Michael McManus and, although there is much to be learnt from Grimond’s leadership of the Liberal party, it is his later years that most interested me. On Margaret Thatcher’s arrival in Downing Street, Grimond, “at first hoped that a restatement of liberalism, might come from that unlikeliest sources, a Conservative government”. Despite soon expressing his disappointment, writing, “there has been no serious assault on . . . excessive government”, Thatcher’s Conservatives, nevertheless, did in some ways successfully cannibalise a theme once strongly identified with the liberal tradition, namely, the idea of spreading ownership. Whereas Richard Cobden argued for greater peasant proprietorship, J.S Mill advocated for workers’ cooperatives, and Lloyd Geoge championed ‘three acres and a cow’, Thatcher introduced ‘Right to Buy’ and wider share ownership. Within such a context, it is, perhaps, no wonder that Grimond possessed a (very) qualified admiration for (aspects of) Thatcherism.

Now, however, with the Conservatives indulging in nativist and nationalistic tub thumping, Liberal Democrats are well positioned to replace the Conservatives as the second largest party by reclaiming our reputation as the advocates of ‘ownership for all’. This should inform our thinking at various levels, including the home, the workplace, and public services.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 29 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 28th July 2024 - 10:30 am

Gaza

The world was presented with two alternative approaches to the Gaza War this week. The first was brokered by China. The second was outlined by Benjamin Netanyahu in an address to a Joint Session of the US Congress.

The first was supported by the feuding leaders of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, 12 other Palestinian factions and a big chunk of the Global South. The second was received with a standing ovation by America’s Republican lawmakers but boycotted by dozens of Democrat Congressmen.

The Chinese-brokered deal is aimed at ending the schism between Fatah which rules the West Bank as the Palestinian Authority and Hamas which has governed Gaza since ejecting Fatah in 2007. The bitter split between the two has been one of the chief obstacles to implementing the much sought after two-state solution.

On Tuesday the Palestinian factions agreed to form an interim reconciliation government. They also agreed to jointly demand a ceasefire; a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the West Bank; elections and they established the bones of a reconstruction programme for Gaza.

On Thursday, Netanyahu denied that Israel was blocking aid to Gaza; claimed that only a few civilians had died; called for the total destruction of Hamas; made no reference to the two-state solution and insisted that a post-war Gaza should be a “demilitarised and de-radicalised” enclave under Israeli military control.

Among those boycotting Netanyahu’s address was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She described his speech as “by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honoured with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States.”

Ukraine

Another visitor to Beijing this week was Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba. It was the first visit to China by a Ukrainian official since the Russian invasion, and indicates a Ukrainian shift in emphasis from the military to the diplomatic.

The Ukrainians see the Chinese as the only third party power with any leverage over Vladimir Putin. Kuleba told his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi that Ukraine was ready to negotiate in good faith, but he added: “No such readiness is currently observed on the Russian side.” Wang agreed that that the “conditions and timing are not yet ripe.”

Vladimir Putin, for his part, is sticking to his demands that Ukraine handover the four regions his troops have occupied in eastern Ukraine; promise not to join NATO and agree to demilitarisation.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 15 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

How should Ed handle PMQs?

By Mathew Hulbert | Sun 28th July 2024 - 8:30 am

Fantastic, wasn’t it?

Seeing Ed Davey rise on Wednesday lunchtime to ask the first of two questions to the Prime Minister, as the leader not only of the third largest Commons caucus but of the biggest third party presence in our Parliament’s elected chamber for a century.

The first time a Liberal leader has been able to do so since pre-Coalition Nick Clegg in the early months of 2010.

Ed, rightly, went on carers and social care; an issue personal to him and to countless families across the country. 

A serious leader asking about a serious issue.

But the question which appeared to get the most media attention after the session was actually asked by the SNP leader in Westminster, Stephen Flynn. 

Now reduced, as the leader of the fourth biggest group, with just nine MPs, to an occasional question (where we were just a few short weeks ago), Flynn-an accomplished media performer, whatever we may think of his politics-asked about the big domestic political issue of the week; the very controversial two child benefit cap.

It got me thinking. 

What should be the Lib Dems PMQs strategy?

What should our leader’s advisers be advising?

To stick to our own agenda each week, regardless of whatever is the political headlines/controversies of the day?

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Kamala v. Donald

By Tom Arms | Sat 27th July 2024 - 10:01 am

Three days, to coin a phrase, is a long time in today’s Tik Tok politics. This time last week wounded and bandaged Donald Trump was basking in what the New York Times called his “mythical status.” He appeared unbeatable. Liberal democrats around the world were in despair.

Then 81-year-old stumbling, crumbling President Joe Biden announced on Sunday that he was dropping out of the White House race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

She in turn surprised pundits with a rousing Milwaukee speech and 40,000 Americans registered to vote in one day this week – a 700 percent increase on the daily average. What looked like a Republican walk-over has been transformed in an instant to a to-close-to-call fight to the finish.

Up until this week the age factor had been the major political issue, especially after Biden’s painful to watch performance in his debate with Trump. But at 78 Trump is no spring chicken and is often guilty of stumbling over thoughts and words. The dementia shoe is now on the Republican foot.

Age, however, will only be one of several issues in the roughly 100 days before the election. More than ever, the contest is now between the American left and right. There is no doubt about Trump’s far-right credentials. The Republican hierarchy tried to push him as a unity candidate at the convention. His acceptance speech at the party convention started along those lines. But he quickly lapsed into his rambling, mean-spirited right-wing attack on opponents real and imagined.

One of the reasons Harris’ 2020 bid for the White House foundered so quickly is that she was perceived as a far-left candidate. If she is going to be successful in 2024 she has to shed that image and capture the centre ground of American politics.

Not helping her are the problems on America’s southern border. Immigration is a major political issue and early on his administration President Biden handed Harris the poisoned chalice of managing America’s southern border. She failed. In 2023 a record 2.3 million people crossed from Mexico into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 11 Comments
Mary Reid

Actors and artists back the abolition of Voter ID

By Mary Reid | Fri 26th July 2024 - 12:36 pm

Voter ID was first introduced at the Local Elections in England in 2023. At the time Lib Dems expressed strong reservations about the scheme for two reasons:

  1. Experience in other countries has shown that the requirement for Voter ID amounts to voter suppression, and that it disproportionately affects certain groups, such as those living in poverty and ethnic minorities.
  2. Voter ID is a solution to a problem that barely exists – voter impersonation happens very rarely.

At the time I wrote about my experience of telling at Woking – now proudly a Lib Dem run Council with a new Lib Dem MP. According to the Electoral Commission 14,000 voters were turned away in 2023 in England because of not having the correct ID. However this figure did not include all those who were picked up by greeters outside the polling station and who never returned.

Those elections only affected a proportion of electoral areas and I suggested that up to 40,000 would have been turned away in England if it had been a General Election. But I greatly underestimated. The Guardian reported some research by More in Common that claimed that 400,000 would-be voters across the UK did not vote in this year’s General Election because of the ID rules and practices.

Helen Morgan has been vocal on this issue for some time, and we have reiterated our position recently.

Today a large group of eminent ethnic minority actors, artists and others in the public eye, including Lenny Henry, Anish Kapoor, Adjoa Andoh, David Harewood, Sophie Okonedo and Gary Younge, have sent an open letter to the Prime Minister:

Continue reading »
Tagged | 5 Comments
Lord William Wallace

English Devolution, or local democracy?

By Lord William Wallace | Thu 25th July 2024 - 6:26 pm

Labour promised as it came into government that it would bring in a ‘Take Back Control’ Bill to return power from Whitehall and Westminster to local communities across England.  If it actually moves in that direction, it will deserve heartfelt support from Liberal Democrats.  But the indications of what is intended provided in the King’s Speech debate and the accompanying Briefing Note are not encouraging.

The English Devolution Bill, we are told, defines local leaders as mayors of Combined and Combined County Authorities.  ‘Mayors are critical to delivering economic growth and will be vital partners’ with central government.  The Bill will put ‘a more ambitious standardised devolution framework into legislation’, modelled on the devolution deals negotiated with existing metro mayors in Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere.  And ‘the Government will establish a new council of the nations and regions’, in which ‘the mayors of combined authorities’ will represent English interests.

‘New powers for mayoral combined authorities’ may be a step forward from micro-management of regional and local government from the Treasury and other Whitehall Departments.  But it’s not democratic local government as Liberals understand it, nor would it provide the regional counterweight to London which we have long called for.  Labour appear to be following their Conservative predecessors in wanting to replace democratic local government, within reach of the people whom it serves, with strong mayors with limited democratic scrutiny while in office who will carry out centrally-funded strategies within tight national guidelines.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 5 Comments
Michael Taylor

The future of telling?

By Michael Taylor | Wed 24th July 2024 - 11:55 am

I sat for an hour at a polling station in Camborne as part of my very long day on July 4th. I was struck by the change in voters’ habits. Whereas in the past they would bring their polling cards with them, one unexpected side effect of the new rules on voter ID has brought about is that they no longer do.

Now they bring ID with them.

I found it very difficult to get polling numbers at all. It was only possible – and then only in about 30% of cases – to get numbers by being quite pushy in asking voters to get their number from the poll clerk and give it to me on the way out. Those who know me well will have little doubt about my ability to be downright pushy, but I very much doubt that this is the right way to endear us to voters.

Now you can argue that telling isn’t really about the numbers but about being there, but we certainly have relied on telling to reduce our necessity to knock up. Indeed, that’s often how I used to sell telling to would be tellers. Asking people to go and stand in the polling station to be seen is, in my view, a much harder sell.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 15 Comments
Mark Pack

Mark Pack’s monthly report: This is what you did

By Mark Pack | Wed 24th July 2024 - 8:47 am

Thank you

From our low of 6 seats in 1959 through to our then peak of 63 in 2006, gaining 57 seats took 47 years. We’ve now gained 61 seats in just 5 years. It was an amazing team achievement, and we all should be proud of the roles we have played.

Perhaps the most amazing helper is our kind deliverer Geoff, who both campaigned locally and in a target seat, a mere 79 years(!) after he delivered his first leaflet as a very young deliverer in the 1945 general election.

Whether it was your first or your twenty-second general election, and whether you helped with leaflets, canvassing, money or in one of many other ways, thank you.

This is what you did:

A particular thanks too to those who worked so hard on campaigns that did not quite make it this time. Just missing out is always frustrating, and all the more so when so many others around you are celebrating. I hope though our other successes can give you hope that success will come in your area too in the years to come.

What happened

That photograph did not happen by accident. Although Rishi Sunak, and before him Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, gave us a helping hand, it was a result we created – deliberately, following a plan all through the Parliament.

We did so by breaking all previous records for the effectiveness of targeting.

Nor was this just due to split opposition votes, because the Lib Dem vote share in the seats we won was impressively high, as Patrick Dunleavy’s figures show:

1983 was the high point of the Alliance and previous attempts to break the two-party system in Westminster. Compared to then, we secured half the votes this time – but three times as many seats. In a political system where the currency of success is seats, that is quite the success.

Of course, the national campaign had an important part in that too. It was a national campaign focused on the voters and media outlets that most mattered for winning seats, and which caught the public’s imagination:

That image captures one of the important lessons from our 2019 election review: the importance of strong visual images to cut through a crowded media landscape and to reach a public often not that interested in the details of politics.

Though I suspect none of that review team – whose work was essential to guiding our work through the last Parliament – quite foresaw what visual images would be coming…

The response from voters came through clearly in the polls:

How it happened

There will be more lessons to digest as there is more time to hear feedback and analyse the evidence, both of what worked well and of what areas we need to work on for next time.

The broad picture though has some clear features. Success came from:

  1. Concentrating on the issues that mattered most to voters;
  2. Building strong teams in our most promising areas;
  3. Explicitly targeting seat numbers rather than vote share – aiming to win seats where we could and to build up our organisational strength elsewhere;
  4. Investing early in intensive support for our candidates and campaigners in our most promising areas;
  5. Taking each round of elections seriously, with each important in its own right but also as a building block for the next too; and
  6. Working together as one team, following a collective strategy based on what you, party members, decided at our conference.

That comes through in the reasons people gave pollster More in Common for voting Liberal Democrat:

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 4 Comments
Adam Robertson

The Conservative leadership election which could consign the Conservatives to history?

By Adam Robertson | Tue 23rd July 2024 - 10:17 am

Embed from Getty Images

In October, I talked about the Liberal Democrats last year becoming the Official Opposition by 2025. It led to a dynamic debate within Lib Dem Voice, but nonetheless it is a crucial debate that we need to have on the direction of our party, if we wish to be a party of Government again. It is an important debate we need to have as we are in the midst of a possible realignment within British Politics, as the Conservative Party could be ‘consigned to history’.

I want to talk now, in more depth, about the second seismic political event in my October article: the Conservative Party leadership election. The first seismic political event was the General Election, where Ed Davey deserves credit for running a fantastic campaign in getting us 72 MPs. The Conservative Party leadership election deserves more attention as it is going to be the most consequential leadership election since the 1922 Committee has been formed. It could change the political landscape, as consequential as when Labour replaced the Liberals as the main centre-left party during the early 20th Century.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 51 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an ex pat: Despair

By Tom Arms | Sat 20th July 2024 - 5:13 pm

My overwhelming emotion in the wake of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump is despair.

My crushing depression is not caused just by the attempted assassination. It has been triggered by the host of events that led up to and followed the shooting in Pennsylvania.

It started with the Republicans thirst for power at any price. Between 1933 and 1995 they were the minority party in the House of Representatives for all but four years.  Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich had the answer. He embraced wedge politics by unjustifiably labelling Democrats as “traitors,” “communists,” or “un-American”. Republicans were “patriots,” and the only “true Americans.”

It worked. Republicans have held the majority in the lower house for 22 of the past 30 years.

Then in 2009 along came the Tea Party with its demands for lower taxes, a reduced national debt and federal budget and decreased government spending.

The Tea Party was followed in 2015-16 by Donald Trump. He married wedge politics to the populism of the Tea Party. At first the Republican old guard opposed him. Then he started to win with a mixture of wedge rhetoric, scapegoating, and dangerously over-simplified answers to complex problems.

After winning the presidency in 2016 he set himself up not as the leader of the Republican Party but as THE Republican Party. If you wanted to secure the Republican nomination for an elected office you first had to pledge fealty to The Donald and his increasingly right-wing policies. If you refused you were branded a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and destined—in many cases—to fail at the first hurdle.

Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 should have been the end of the cult of Donald Trump. It wasn’t.  He kept it alive by donning the mantle of victimhood and claiming– without a shred of evidence—that the 2020 election was stolen by Biden and that he was the real winner. On January 6, 2021, a mob incited by Trump’s lies and rhetoric stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 15 Comments
Ruvi Ziegler

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

By Ruvi Ziegler | Sat 20th July 2024 - 9:31 am

On 30 December 2022, the UN General Assembly passed resolution A/RES/77/247 in which it asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to opine on two questions:

First, what are the legal consequences arising from the violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 (OPT),  including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?

Second, how do these Israeli policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the UN from that status?<

On 19 July 2024, 20 years and 10 days since the ICJ rendered its Wall advisory opinion, the world court delivered a bombshell. All ICJ judges agreed that the above questions fall with the court’s jurisdiction and all but one of the 15 judges (Vice-President Sebitunde) decided that the court should comply with the request for an advisory opinion (given it has discretion whether to do so). The same resounding majority found that ‘Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the OPT’ and that it ‘has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the OPT’.

A smaller yet significant majority, 11-4 (Vice-President Sebitunde joined by judges Tomka, Abraham, and Aurescu) found that ‘Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful’ and that it ‘is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible’. The court reached this conclusion in light of the violation of two key principles of international law: the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and the right of peoples (in this case, the Palestinian people) to self-determination. The aims and realities of the settlement project in cementing Israel’s presence in the OPT rendering the occupation’s temporariness a façade, and in instituting a discriminatory regime whereby two populations, Israelis and Palestinians, living in the same occupied territory, are subject to different legal regimes, played a crucial role in the court’s determination that the entire Israeli presence in the OPT has become illegal.

When it comes to the responsibilities of other states, by a 12-3 majority (Vice-President Sebitunde joined by judges Abraham and Aurescu) the ICJ found that

‘all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the OPT’.

They also found that:

‘international organisations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT.’

Finally, they found that:

‘the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT.’

This advisory opinion is ground-breaking: by ripping the mask of temporality off the face of Israel’s prolonged occupation, by identifying the settlement project as its core ongoing harm, and by highlighting the critical role the international community (can and must) play in bringing the unlawful situation to a rapid end.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 10 Comments

Legalising cannabis: Correcting historical wrongs and embracing diverse production

By Darren Ross | Wed 17th July 2024 - 12:00 pm

Embed from Getty Images

The Liberal Democrats have always championed progressive and pragmatic approaches to drug policy, and their stance on cannabis is no exception. It’s time to acknowledge that the criminalisation of cannabis—a natural herb—was a historical misstep. The Liberal Democrats advocate for legalisation, emphasizing that this approach is not only more sensible but also just.

Ending Criminalisation

Cannabis should never have been criminalised. The Shaffer report in 1972 advised against criminalisation, but Nixon banned it anyway, along with psychedelics, which also have ancient healing properties. This ban was never about public safety; it was a politically motivated attempt to attack Nixon’s enemies in the Black, immigrant, and liberal populations. For over 50 years, people have been trying to defend themselves from a position of criminality. Decriminalisation corrects this historical wrong, ensuring that individuals are no longer penalised for cultivating or consuming a plant that has been used for thousands of years for medicine and spiritual purposes.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 2 Comments
Andrew Chandler

We need to be ambitious on planning and housing – while telling uncomfortable truths

By Andrew Chandler | Tue 16th July 2024 - 10:50 am

Now that the election is over, and we have successfully made inroads into the Conservative Blue Wall, it’s time to reflect and learn from our past. Moving forward, it’s crucial that we balance our national progressive platform with the needs of our Blue Wall constituents. We must navigate this balance with confidence, avoiding the pitfalls of timidity that have hindered us in the past. In a landscape marked by fragmented politics and widespread distrust, we can’t afford to be complacent.

Our victories in this election were not isolated as an endorsement alone but were also influenced by a split on the right. It poses a threat for us. People have an appetite to “shake-up” the system feeling that, for years, Governments have neglected issues like housing, development and infrastructure. We need to be mindful of the rising threat of far-right politics, which often scapegoats marginal groups instead of addressing the real issues. The performances of parties like Reform and the lukewarm vote share for Labour highlight the concerns of many communities. These communities feel “threatened,” suffer from managed decline, and lack regeneration. It’s our duty to ensure that the gains we’ve made in the Blue Wall, while substantiated, also remains meaningful and sometimes brave.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 30 Comments
Michal Siewniak

I AM because YOU ARE – Remembering Srebrenica

By Michal Siewniak | Mon 15th July 2024 - 5:47 pm

Living in the UK gives me incredible opportunities to work and meet people from every corner of the world. Although some disagree, this is in my opinion one of the British greatest assets and advantages; the mixture of talents, skills and ethnicities. I think that I was lucky enough to be well prepared for my life in a very multicultural British society, especially during my studies in Croatia. My stay in the Croatian capital, Zagreb, made a huge impact on my personal development. This is where, for the first time, I actually experienced living among a diverse community and encountered many people, who were displaced by the recent war. I’ve learnt the language, which also helped me to integrate better and understand the complex elements of Croatian history and heritage. It is still one of my favourite parts of Europe.

Since coming to Hertfordshire and Welwyn Garden City, almost 20 years ago, I was blessed and privileged to get to know a wonderful Bosnian community and members of the Bosnian Saturday School in Borehamwood, many of whom are my friends.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | Leave a comment
Zagham Farhan

Our MPs swear an oath to the Monarch – that’s wrong

By Zagham Farhan | Mon 15th July 2024 - 2:02 pm

This article was inspired by a clip I came across on Instagram of Labour MP Clive Lewis being sworn in, where he noted that he made the oath under protest, in the hope that one day people would live in a Republic. This reinforced to me the idea that our Members of Parliament swear an oath not to their constituents or the people who elected them, but instead to the Monarch and his heirs. My distaste for the Monarchy as an institution is well known to those around me, but I think that regardless of your opinion of the institution as a whole, you can concur that our MPs’ oath should focus more on their role as representatives of the people, as opposed to their status as servants of the King.

Our Constitutional settlement is messy and complicated, but in the modern day we accept our Monarch as a figurehead, and the actions of the State are conducted almost entirely through HM Government – who must command the support of the House of Commons. I don’t like it, but it does work.

What many people don’t realise however is that our Ministers don’t rule in conjunction with the Monarch, but rather through their authority. Each law must gain Royal Assent, each Secretary of State derives their authority from the King. Indeed, in the brief window between Rishi Sunak resigning and Sir Keir Starmer arriving at Buckingham Palace; all executive power rested with King Charles III. Our Monarchy is fundamental to our political system, engrained into every element of our governance.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 26 Comments
Stephen Harte

Showing who we are in our HR practices

By Stephen Harte | Mon 15th July 2024 - 11:10 am

A few years ago, I wrote for Lib Dem Voice arguing that Lib Dem politicians who employed people should up there game when it came to HR practices.

I argued that the best way of explaining liberalism is to show what in means in all that we do – especially in how we treated our staff colleagues. With Westminster now paying for the staff for 72 (yay!) fine Lib Dem MPs (and Short Money hopefully adding to the central staff we can afford), this is a good time to be reminded of this.

However, that’s not why I’m writing today.

The other day, the Federal Party issued a job advert for a senior communications role. The advert asked applications to prepare a CV (no more than two pages) and a covering letter explaining why they would be a good fit in the role. I am sure that a serious applicant will spend quite some time and effort getting this right.

This role looks important and I’d hope that the Party will attract serious and experienced applicants.

So what does the Party say to those serious and experienced applicants who we want to spend time and effort on an application?

We will not notify applicants if their application has not been successful at the shortlisting stage

As I tweeted to the Federal Party President, this essentially says “please put a lot of work into the application but we won’t show you the courtesy of even acknowledging that application because we don’t respect you”.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
David Brunnen

The liberal view from Suella Braverman’s constituency

By David Brunnen | Sun 14th July 2024 - 2:42 pm

After a campaign where she promised commitment to the interests of local residents, the MP for Fareham & Waterlooville, (re-elected with a  majority reduced from 26086 to 6079) flew immediately to Washington to continue her cultural campaign in a speech to the National Conservatism Conference (NATCON) and subsequently repeated her remarks via a transatlantic link to a Westminster conference of Popular Conservatism where she spoke of the need to insulate government bodies from what she called the “lunatic woke virus”.

The immediacy of her attention-switch from apparent local concerns to distant and divisive hate-filled ideology is a sharp reminder of why Conservative ranks in the UK are now much diminished.  Even Conservative voices (with the unelected exception of Rees-Mogg) were united in condemnation of her views.  The extremists argue that the Conservative cause was lost because they were insufficiently extreme – whereas the overwhelming common judgement was a preference for competent delivery rather than divisive dogma. 

Continue reading »
Tagged | 2 Comments
Zagham Farhan

I went to a Reform UK rally. This is what I learned.

By Zagham Farhan | Sun 14th July 2024 - 1:00 pm

Bored in Oxford, three weeks after the end of term and with everyone else having gone home, I decided to take an impulsive day trip to see the Reform UK rally in Birmingham on the last Sunday before election day. I’m not quite sure what I was expecting, as a committed Liberal Democrat and a son of immigrants, I was most certainly apprehensive. I was viewing it essentially as a learning experience, a chance to discover what had driven these people towards Nigel Farage’s newest political entity. 

After an extremely pleasant National Express bus trip and getting slightly lost in the NEC- I found myself in a huge hall, which I later learnt houses around 5000 people. There was an unmistakeable buzz in the room. I got the feeling that the people there felt like they were witnessing something really important. I doubt many of them had been to a political event before, and they’d been uniquely drawn in by Reform. I saw lots of England football shirts, and even a couple of Make America Great Again hats. It was a notably old audience, it seemed like the vast majority were 50+ with an assortment of young men too. I saw very few young women, and very few people from ethnic minorities.

The event was extremely well run, with food and drink stalls, and they even managed to drive their election bus in somehow. The speaker line up consisted of Chief Exec Paul Oakden, Ann Widdecombe, major donor Zia Yusuf (I recommend that you watch this speech in particular), Richard Tice and of course Nigel Farage. When my friends realised where I was off to, I was surprised at the number of messages I got saying ‘stay safe.’ I had never considered that I might be at risk at this event, but apparently a number of my friends (all students) thought that I would be utterly unwelcome. I didn’t find that to be the case at all. Everyone was exceedingly polite, and while I didn’t make any effort to engage in any political conversation, I’m sure they would have been more than willing. 

The speeches centred on a few central political themes- the Tories have failed, the state is too big, we should be patriotic, immigration is too high, there are only two genders. ‘Put British people first’ was uttered repeatedly. Each speaker got a rapturous reception from the audience. 

I think they were translating anger into messaging in a way that other parties failed to do in this election. These are people who haven’t seen palpable economic growth in years, seen the culture of their cities changing, and their public services creaking. Reform have managed to direct that anger, to give them a sense that the ‘British’ people had been ignored, and that they present the answer. 

I share very little politically with Reform UK. The way that they’ve continuously demonised immigrants has been a significant contributor to the horrible nature of our public discourse on the issue. Their attempts to erase trans people are deeply damaging. Some of their candidates demonstrated the very worst of what British politics has to offer. Their rhetoric is dangerous, and we need to ensure that we challenge it at every turn. I’m sure many of our nation’s bigots and racists showed up to vote for them on the 4th July; but I also think that many of their voters are just normal people, completely disillusioned with our politics. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 12 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 14th July 2024 - 11:15 am

European Parliament

Patriots for Europe is a political oxymoron designed to confuse the public about its true intentions. It stands alongside other political oxymorons such as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, which is neither democratic, a republic or run for the benefit of the North Korean people.

Patriots for Europe is a new political grouping in the European Parliament. And the political reality is that none of the national political parties that belong to this group feel the least patriotic leanings towards the European concept.

In fact, they are all Euro-sceptics whose main mission in life is to undermine the concept of a united Europe and drag their countries back to the 19th century when Europe was a patchwork of feuding nationalistic states.

The intellectual driving force behind Patriots for Europe is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. His Fidesz Party was booted out of the centre-right European People’s Party in 2022 for being too right-wing and has been politically homeless ever since.

Soon after the announcement of the results for the recent European Parliament elections – a victory for the far-right – Orban flew to Vienna to launch Patriots for Europe alongside Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis and former Austrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl. Their stated manifesto was: weaken the EU, focus on European cultural identity, introduce stronger anti-immigration measures and oppose the EU’s climate change policy which aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050.

The core trio quickly attracted far-right groups from across the EU. By the end of this week it had grown to 84 seats drawn from 12 member states. This places it in third place behind the centre-right European People’s Party (176 seats) and the centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (139 seats). There are a total of 720 seats in the European Parliament.

Conspicuous by its absence from the new party is Germany’s AfD (Alternative for Deutschland). Recent Nazi-related scandals have put the far-right Germans beyond the pale even for the likes of Viktor Orban.

A catch was France’s National Rally (RN). It achieved a major victory in the European Parliamentary elections with 30 of France’s 79 MEPs. National Rally then went on to place a disappointing—and surprising—third in French parliamentary elections.

RN’s Jordan Bardella had expected to be French Prime Minister. He has had to settle for the job of President of Patriots for Europe. He secures the job as leader of the national party with the largest number of MEPs in the new political group.  He will be using the parliamentary building at Strasbourg as a platform from which to attack France’s left and centre in preparation for the French presidential elections in 2027.

Iran

“I am a reformist principlist”, declares Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly-elected president.

But what is a “reformist principlist”? According to Pezeshkian it is someone who is loyal to the principles of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but wants to liberalise/reform the principles of that revolution.

That means, for a start, swearing allegiance to Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khameini, which he did throughout his campaign. In fact, in his victory speech Pezeshkian praised the “guidance” of Khameini which he described as a major factor in his electoral success.

Khameini, for his part, made a rare post-election speech in which he acknowledged that some Iranians dislike his regime. He then added: “We listen to them and we know what they are saying.”

The question is: What is Khameini hearing and what will he allow Pezeshkian to do about it?

The new president campaigned on a pledge to rein in the morality police who had been arresting women who refused to wear head scarves. He also wanted to improve relations with the West and resume talks on Iran’s nuclear development.

The headscarves issue is likely to be a win for the protesters. The government is unlikely to make a song and dance about it, but they will probably inform the morality police to turn a blind eye to the absence of scarves.

An Iranian initiative to resume talks on nuclear development may also be on the cards. This is because, according to US intelligence, the Iranians have recently slowed down their race to develop nuclear weapons. Thus there is more scope for talks on time limits and associated issues.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 19 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Political violence and intimidation is not new, and it needs to end

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 14th July 2024 - 10:40 am

I was about to go to bed last night when news started to filter through about shots being fired at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. The initial pictures showing a bleeding Donald Trump being taken from the stage by the Secret Service agents who had courageously got between him and the bullets that were being sent his way were incredibly disturbing.

Thankfully, he was ok, though he is bound to be shocked but two people died and two people are, at the time of writing, critically ill.

I was incredibly impressed by how calmly and articulately BBC reporter Gary O’Donaghue described what was going on while lying on the ground taking cover behind a car outside the rally.

It should go without saying that candidates and people should be able to conduct and participate in democracy in safety. Too often, we are seeing the opposite. In this country we have seen two MPs killed while carrying out their surgeries in the past 8 years.

In the recent election, Jess Phillips described in her victory speech the intimidation and harassment she and her campaigners had experienced. It’s a tough listen. Nobody should have to go through this.

She should have been accompanied by Jo Cox’s family on polling day, but she asked them not to come out of worry that it would be too traumatic for them to see what she was going through.

She went into more detail about the emotional impact on her on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast the day after the election.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 2 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Special Relationship

By Tom Arms | Sat 13th July 2024 - 9:48 am

It’s time for the Special Relationship to be extracted from the diplomatic cupboard and dusted off.

Britain needs it. Europe needs it. And, although they are less keen to admit that they need help from any quarter, the US needs it to become the cornerstone of a new Transatlantic Alliance.

For years the UK shared the “Special Relationship” tag with France and Germany. In fact, after Brexit, Britain probably slipped into third place in Washington’s relationship arrangements.

But French President Emmanuel Macron has politically castrated himself with the recent political elections and the dull and dreary German Chancellor Olaf Scholz fails to inspire either the Germans or the wider world community

Britain may no longer be an EU power, but Sir Keir Starmer’s landslide victory gives him latitude at home and kudos abroad.

He is helped by a foreign secretary who has the potential to go down in history as one of the best in modern times. David Lammy wasted no time in stamping his image on British foreign policy. Almost before Sir Keir had finished his acceptance speech, Lammy was on the plane for Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Kyiv. This week he was at the prime minister’s elbow for the NATO summit in Washington where Sir Keir was the only NATO leader awarded a tete a tete with President Joe Biden.

Lammy also has extensive American connections. The new foreign secretary has worked, studied and lived in the US. He has family in America and his father is buried in Texas.

But what if Donald Trump returns to the White House? A prospect which appears increasingly likely as Joe Biden ages with every passing day. Lammy is on record as labelling Trump a “woman-hating neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath” and a “profound threat to international order” as well as a racist and a fascist.

But both Sir Keir and Lammy have said that the transAtlantic relationship remains the “bedrock” of British foreign policy. And in a recent speech at the conservative US think tank the Hudson Institute, Lammy said that Trump’s comments on European security had been “misunderstood.” He has also gone out of his way recently to meet senior Trump foreign policy advisers.

Unfortunately, Trump’s negative policy towards Europe is based on good, sound politics. It is a reflection of a growing US isolationism which in turn is a reaction to series of foreign policy reversals. That feeling of being hard done by the rest of the world (especially its European allies) will continue regardless of whomever win the November election.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 7 Comments
Chris Perry

Is the Criminal Justice system broken?

By Chris Perry | Fri 12th July 2024 - 7:22 pm

Concerns about knife crime amongst young people, unacceptable delays in the court system, prisons bursting at the seams and yet most reported crime goes unresolved.

The UK has areas of deprivation the likes of which have not been seen since the second world war. There are children and young people with little to do and very little hope or aspiration. How can we punish children for behaviour which is a direct result of the society into which they have been born?

There are now 3.9 million children being brought up in poverty – 2/3rds of whom have a parent in work. Children brought up in poverty are less likely to do well at school, more likely to have health problems, making a demand upon the NHS, and have a shorter life expectancy.

Many children who offend, commit their first offence whilst truanting from school. The educational system has failed them. Children should want to go to school and not have to be made to do so. Schools should encourage children to get involved in organised out of school activity.

Community Policing should be exactly that by re-instating neighbourhood police officers who can be around so that the children know him/her and (s)he knows most of the children by sight.

Many children go on offending sprees between apprehension for an offence and disposal through the courts which is why this period needs to be kept as short as possible and to a matter of days.

Group residential intervention, be it Young Offender Institutions or residential care (secure or otherwise) for young people has been shown to reinforce offending and establish a pattern of offending for life. “Creating Criminals”.

During my social work training my residential placement was in a Remand Home. When boys arrived the others would ask what they had done. Which would usually be greeted by “Oh, is that all”. The story would get progressively serious with each telling and most conversation be about crime. Even if children were rehabilitated the local community would expect them to behave as before and they would soon revert to past behaviour.

Stigma and labelling is responsible for a great deal of anti-social behaviour.

Policies of diversion and alternatives to custody need to be adequately resourced because of the risks involved and capable of fully occupying the child who has offended throughout their waking hours on activities which interest and motivate him/her, so (s)he grows out of his/her offending.

Community-based activities are very visible and, as such, can lead to criticism of rewarding bad behaviour. Society is quite happy to spend £130,000 per child per year on Young Offenders Institutions which is seen as punishment even though it does not work than a fraction of that cost on constructive intervention.

This is why it is important that some of the activity should involve face to face contact with people in need (such as the CSV Children in Care Programme of the 70s and 80s) to change the perception from delinquent to helper in both the young person’s own eyes and in those around them.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Mary Reid

Tactical voting works both ways

By Mary Reid | Thu 11th July 2024 - 1:41 pm

I want to thank all those Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem to ensure that a Conservative was not elected in their constituency.

I also want to thank all those Lib Dem supporters who voted Labour for the same reason.

The first time I ever voted it was for Labour. I had been a Liberal supporter from my teens, but my preferred candidate had no chance in my area in South West London. Labour selected a doctor who was black as their candidate, and he came in for all sorts of nasty racist dog-whistle and overt attacks during the election campaign. He seemed a decent man to me so I voted for him. Sadly he did not win, although I was pleased to see him take his seat in the Lords some time later.

The next time I voted I was living in Kingston where I have never had a reason to vote tactically.

Voters have become increasingly sophisticated in their understanding of First Past the Post and tactical voting. We have to thank all the vote switchers for holding their noses, in some cases, and backing the person most likely to defeat the Tory candidate. It worked.

So I was rather taken aback to see comments on social media from some party members moaning about the low Lib Dem figures in some non-target constituencies and complaining that the candidates didn’t do enough campaigning. They assume that the single figure percentages reflect our true base vote. This, of course, flies in the face of our clearly enunciated election strategy, and also the underlying assumption that Lib Dem voters should vote Labour where it would have the desired effect.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 31 Comments
Mary Reid

Max Atkinson

By Mary Reid | Thu 11th July 2024 - 10:59 am

Some of you may remember a World in Action TV programme back in 1984 called ‘Claptrap’ in which a first time speaker at the SDP Conference, Ann Brennan, was given an amazing standing ovation. Her success was the result of a social experiment, and the programme tracked the coaching she received from Max Atkinson.

Max was an academic who had studied political speechmaking.  Earlier that year he had published a book titled Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics in which he described various public speaking techniques that are almost guaranteed to get applause (ie claptraps). He worked with Ann, who had never given a political speech before, and taught her all the tricks he had observed.  The resulting speech that Ann gave to conference was highly praised at the time and enjoyed more than its 15 minutes of fame.

A few years ago Mark Pack uploaded a very fuzzy copy of the programme to YouTube, so you can watch it here. (If anyone can find a clearer version do let me know).

When he became Leader, Paddy Ashdown took Max Atkinson on as his speechwriter and adviser and they worked as a team for a dozen years.

Max Atkinson and Paddy Ashdown

Continue reading »
Also posted in Obituaries | Tagged | 10 Comments
Zagham Farhan

Our elections are broken. Let’s fix them!

By Zagham Farhan | Wed 10th July 2024 - 7:37 pm

I’ve always detested First Past the Post. As a child getting into politics, one of the first things I did was learn about all the voting systems out there, and each one I learnt about seemed better than FPTP. 

This election has brought home to me just how flawed this system is, and how rigged it is in favour of the political establishment. I’ve spent much of the last couple of the days reminding people that Labour got just 34% of the votes in this election. Just over a third of voters endorsed Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour, but he’ll spend much of the next five years behaving as if he has the full confidence of the entirety of the British public, and an unlimited mandate to behave as he wishes. We must remember that he simply doesn’t have the confidence of the majority of the British people, and to hold Labour to account as such. 

The biggest losers to our electoral system this time around were Reform UK and the Greens. Both those parties’ seat counts don’t accurately reflect their national support in the slightest. Our system is deliberately exclusive, shutting out parties who aren’t able to geographically concentrate their support, and keeping the two main parties in power. In my opinion, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. 

While FPTP suited us excellently this time around, we need to ensure this doesn’t make us forget our core beliefs. Constitutional Reform has long been at the centre of the Liberal Democrat agenda, and it needs to continue to be. We’re a large block in parliament now, and that gives us a platform. We need to work with whoever might be willing, to ensure our elections are truly representative. 

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 21 Comments
Geoff Reid

The dangers of country before party

By Geoff Reid | Wed 10th July 2024 - 9:25 am

It’s just as well that Labour reduced the election slogans on the placards to one word. I hope that Keir Starmer’s verbal repetition of the “country before party” slogan is quickly forgotten. It comes with its own dangers. Patriotism is fine, provided you and your hearers understand what you mean by that word. Unfortunately it is easily confused with nationalism.

The sleaze, cronyism and breaking of rules by government ministers and MPs over the past decade were offences committed by people, elected as Conservatives who put themselves before the country and indeed before their party. If only these miscreants could have been reprimanded in the style of an old-style school head by someone saying “You have let Parliament down, you have let your constituents down, you have let your country down and you have let yourself down.”

We should add “You have let politics down.” Sometimes as political activists we are tempted to despair when we hear a growing number of residents in some areas proclaiming that they are not going to vote because “they are all the same”. Some of those who tarred everyone else with the same Tory brush voted for Farage and his nativist/populists, which is one reason why Starmer’s vacuous slogan should trigger flashing warning lights. Vote switching Conservatives worked wonders for the Lib Dems but I have a certain grudging respect for those lifelong Tories who really did despair, understood that they had no party to vote for and therefore stayed at home.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 7 Comments
Caron Lindsay

2024 Parliament: Lib Dem MPs get to work

By Caron Lindsay | Tue 9th July 2024 - 8:33 pm

This is what the last four years’ hard work has all been about.

Today, 72 Lib Dem MPs and Jennie, the gorgeous guide dog of Torbay MP Steve Darling posed for the 2024 team photo.

How many can you name? If you are not sure, have a look at our posts on our new MPs

Earlier, our MPs had filled up row upon row in the House of Commons, with Ed taking up the place traditionally occupied by the leader of the third party, last occupied by Nick Clegg up until the 2010 election.

Our Parliament really has some incredible pomp and ritual that some might argue reinforces its remoteness from the people. Black Rod is despatched from the Lords to summon senior MPs to read a proclamation from the King that is written in centuries old English.

Back in the Commons, they elect a Speaker who is dragged to the chair as a throwback to the days when being the Speaker was a dangerous occupation so the unfortunate victor was never enthusiastic about taking on the job.

With Lindsay Hoyle duly re-elected unoposed, each party leader was given a chance to say a few words of congratulation and intent:

Here’s Ed:

The text is below:

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 6 Comments
Chris Whiting

A triumph on tenuous ground

By Chris Whiting | Tue 9th July 2024 - 4:30 pm

The Liberal Democrats pulled off a historic feat in the 2024 general election, clinching a record number of seats and catapulting themselves back into the limelight. Becoming the third party once more and achieving the highest liberal seat tally in a century is nothing to be scoffed at.

Yet, beneath the surface of this triumph lies an uncomfortable truth: the newly minted caucus is both artificially bloated and alarmingly fragile. Whilst the party will no doubt aim to make hay while the sun shines, the shimmering successes of last week could quickly turn sour if the party misreads what’s to come.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 52 Comments
Paul Hindley

The Liberal Democrats are now Britain’s progressive opposition

By Paul Hindley | Tue 9th July 2024 - 10:37 am

Seventy-two seats! Seventy-two! I doubt even in Ed Davey’s wildest dreams, he envisioned us winning so many seats. The “Blue Wall” lies in rubble. The Liberal Democrats now have more seats than at any time in over a century. Not since 1923, when Herbert Asquith was the party leader, have Liberals held so many seats in the House of Commons. We now represent dozens of seats across the South of England. But that’s not all, we also made gains in the North of England, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales. There is something poetic about our 72nd seat (and the final seat to be declared in this election) being that of our late great former leader Charles Kennedy.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 10 Comments
Paul Walter

Blair-era veterans given ministerial roles – Starmer does what we should have done in coalition

By Paul Walter | Tue 9th July 2024 - 9:05 am

Embed from Getty Images

Keir Starmer is bringing a few Blair era veterans back into government:

-Jacqui Smith as Higher Education Minister, first elected 27 years ago
-Douglas Alexander as Business Minister, also first elected 27 years ago and now re-elected at the recent election
-Pat McFadden as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, first elected 19 years ago
-Alan Milburn assisting the new Health Secretary, first elected 32 years ago

Between them, those four individuals have a total of 105 years experience in the British parliament/government/public life between them.

Compare that with our first batch of coalition cabinet members (figures as of 2010 when the coalition government was set up):

-Nick Clegg, first elected to the British parliament 5 years previously
-Danny Alexander, first elected to the British parliament 5 years previously
-David Laws, first elected for Yeovil 9 years previously
-Andrew Stunell (OK, I’ll give you that Andrew was a “grey haired” veteran at the time), first elected to the British parliament 13 years previously
-Chris Huhne, first elected to the British parliament 5 years previously.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 17 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jenny Barnes
    We probably do need to increase tax to fund defence. Borrowing depends on the markets beleiving that the country can afford to pay it back, which would requir...
  • Nick Baird
    Thank you Simon - I agree that a tax rise is the way to fund increased defence expenditure. My issue with Defence Bonds is not that it increases borrowing, b...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "(like the Treasury?) I am very, very concerned about the MOD’s ability to spend the money productively. That’s a comment aimed both at it being bad at proc...
  • David Le Grice
    I would wonder whether it's possible to make VAT more progressive by identifying those items that wealthy people don't actually spend much more on and exempting...
  • Suzanne Fletcher
    I agree we need to raise taxes for this and other spending needed. However not VAT, that impacts on poorer people on a lot of things they have to spend money o...