Category Archives: Op-eds

Tom Reeve

Fly me to the moon – reflections on the overview effect  

By Tom Reeve | Thu 2nd April 2026 - 8:07 pm

There is a moment, presumably, just before the engines ignite, when even the most committed astronaut thinks: what on earth am I doing? But then, if they take a moment to look out of the portal at what is happening on the surface of this ball of rock and water we call home – well, who can fault them for wanting to get as far away as possible?

Four astronauts left Earth yesterday, climbing aboard what is, in engineering terms, a controlled explosion and trusting it to hurl them away from the planet at speeds no living thing was designed to tolerate. You could call it brave or foolish. But consider the alternative. They could have stayed. They could have watched the climate data worsen quarter by quarter while the machinery of international response grinds and stalls. They could have followed the wars – the missiles falling on Ukrainian cities, the devastation in Gaza, death and destruction in Iran, chaos in the Straits of Hormuz and more – and felt that familiar mixture of horror and helplessness. They could have watched democracy, that fragile and still-young experiment, being stress-tested by autocrats in countries big and small.

Strapped to a rocket for a journey further from Earth than any human has ever gone before, suddenly, looks sensible.

I imagine that what they will find up there is not escape. Not safety. Something closer to its opposite.

From orbit, Earth looks like a thought someone had and then left out in the dark. A thin blue film stretched over rock and water, suspended in a universe that is almost entirely lethal. No atmosphere. No liquid water. No margin for error. The cosmos does not negotiate, does not hold summits, does not issue statements of concern. It simply is – vast, indifferent, and hostile to everything we are made of.

Astronauts who have seen this tend to describe the same thing. Not relief at the distance, but a kind of vertigo at the stakes. The overview effect, as it has come to be known, is the sudden, visceral understanding that borders are invisible from up there, that conflicts look like nothing against the curvature of a planet, and that the arguments consuming us – which party, which nation, which version of the future – are being conducted on a single, fragile, irreplaceable rock.

Continue reading »
1 Comment
Mo Waqas

Trump has shown us who he is. It’s time Britain started acting like it.

By Mo Waqas | Thu 2nd April 2026 - 12:35 pm

Let me be blunt. Donald Trump wants to pull America out of NATO. And my honest reaction? Let him.

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter. I’m saying we need to stop acting like heartbroken teenagers waiting for Washington to text back. The special relationship is dead. It’s been dead for a while. Trump just had the decency to say it out loud.

So what now? We do what Britain has always done when its back is against the wall. We get serious. We get moving. And we stop relying on people who have made it crystal clear they don’t care whether we sink or swim.

Britain needs to re-industrialise, and I mean urgently not as some vague manifesto pledge buried on page forty-seven, but as a national mission. We need to open arms factories. We need to build capacity to manufacture what we need to defend ourselves and our allies, on our own soil, with our own workers. If we cannot produce the steel, the ships, the ammunition, and the technology to keep this country safe, then we are not a sovereign nation. We are a theme park with a nuclear deterrent.

And yes, I said steel. We need a nationalised steel sector. I know that makes some in our party uncomfortable. Good. Comfort is what got us here. Thirty years of comfortable orthodoxy, comfortable assumptions about the end of history, comfortable faith that the Americans would always be there and the markets would always provide. The peace dividend has been spent. Every last penny. It’s time to invest again, and if the private sector won’t do it, then the state must.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 17 Comments
Lord William Wallace

Defending Local Democracy

By Lord William Wallace | Thu 2nd April 2026 - 9:20 am

While we are all campaigning in this year’s local elections, Liberal Democrats need to be aware of the implications of the ‘English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill’, which has already passed the Commons and is now close to completing its passage in the Lords.  It’s designed to complete the project the Conservatives began of imposing elected mayors and ‘Combined Authorities’ all across England, with larger unitary authorities to replace remaining district and county councils.

As the Liberal Democrat group’s Cabinet Office spokesman, I had not intended to get actively involved in the Bill beyond its constitutional significance for the governance of the United Kingdom – which is almost ignored in the Bill.  Sitting alongside our Bill team as we moved from Second Reading through eight days of committee and two days of voting on amendments at report stage (one more to come on April 13th), I’ve become more and more appalled – like my colleagues – of what it means for local democracy.

Its title itself is fraudulent.  It’s about decentralization, not real devolution, and it empowers mayors, not communities.  Its underlying assumption is that the minimum size for efficient local administration is a ‘community’ of half a million people, with ‘strategic’ decisions taken above that level by mayors in ‘Combined Authorities’ responsible for 1-2 million or more.  Just for comparison, there are two sovereign European states with populations of half a million – Malta and Iceland, each with subordinate tiers of democratic government.  Luxembourg is slightly larger.  The larger combined authorities cater for populations approaching those of the Baltic and Nordic states.  They are to be governed by executive mayors, who will appoint a substantial number of ‘commissioners’ as responsible for specific areas – Parliament is still contesting how many they may appoint.  Councillors from the unitary authorities below them will have limited powers of scrutiny.

London is both a model and an exception for this reform.  Its 32 boroughs (plus the City of London) range from 150,000 to 390,000 people, with an elected Assembly to counterbalance the executive Mayor and his appointed deputies.  But there are murmurings that ministers and officials regard London boroughs as ‘outdated’ and wish as soon as possible to shrink their number to some 6-8.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 7 Comments
Max Wilkinson

Max Wilkinson writes….Free speech, X and immigration – FAO Katie Lam

By Max Wilkinson | Wed 1st April 2026 - 3:07 pm

Free speech is an important principle in Britain. It’s one of the things that gets me out of bed in the morning. It’s why I so strongly believe we must remain in the ECHR, which protects in law our right to free expression. I am a supporter of free speech because whether I agree with you or not, as a liberal I’m always keen to hear what you think.

That applies as much to the vexed question of immigration as it does to anything else. I take a nuanced view on the subject, just like the majority of British people. Do I believe in open borders? Of course not. Do I think we should aim for zero net migration or pursue the harmful approach of ‘remigration’ (AKA kicking people out who currently have the right to be here)? Absolutely not.

I believe strongly that immigration has a role to play in our nation, just as it always has. We can’t pretend our public services would work without a level of immigration – not least in the health and social care sectors. We can’t pretend that our economy will thrive unless we have a level of immigration to ensure private sector vacancies are filled in sectors where we have a skills shortage. And with a birth rate below the replacement rate and falling, we cannot pretend things are going to work without a level of net migration to ensure we have enough people paying tax to fund public services like the NHS and our growing pensions bill.

On asylum, of course we need to prevent dangerous small boat crossings and have a fair, safe and controlled system. The way to do that is to work with our European and international partners, not to follow the doctrine of the Tories and Reform by pretending we can withdraw from the world.

These nuanced, commonsense positions based on reality rather than dogma often get lost in the battle between the simple arguments made by those either side of us. Consequently, I’m grateful that something I’ve said on the subject of immigration has been noticed. Indeed, it hasn’t simply been noticed – it’s gone round the world. Many users of X, right wing commentators, the Conservative Party MP Katie Lam and the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy have leapt upon some comments I made on (checks notes) December 8 last year.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 9 Comments
Tom Reeve

Exclusive: Lib Dems to ditch yellow – and party name – in secret rebrand 

By Tom Reeve | Wed 1st April 2026 - 11:27 am

The Liberal Democrats are planning to abandon the iconic yellow colour scheme in favour of mauve, following a review by a boutique consultancy to “help the party live its best life”. 

The party is also thinking of changing its name to something more “on trend”. A spokesperson denied rumours that the party was suffering a midlife crisis. 

A slide deck, marked “Secret – but we’ll have to tell them eventually”, recommends a phased transition to a “trust-forward colour ecosystem”.

“Yellow, in stakeholder sentiment analysis, was described by participants as ‘loud,’ ‘a bit much,’ and ‘like being shouted at by a lemon’,” the report states. “Net Promoter Score for yellow among C2 swing voters in target marginals: minus 14. Recommendation: discontinue.”

It identifies a “colour equity gap” between the party’s current visual identity and its desired positioning as a “calm, competent alternative in a fragmented political landscape”. 

A slide headed “Emotional Resonance Mapping,” states: “Mauve occupies a unique position in the colour spectrum. Neither red nor blue, it simultaneously gestures toward both.” A footnote on the slide adds: “In a fragmented political landscape, this ambiguity is not a weakness. It is the brand.” 

Focus group participants described mauve as “quite pleasant”, “inoffensive” and “the colour of my nan’s bathroom”. The report notes: “These are strong trust indicators.”

The document recommends a three-phase transition: digital and social assets first, then print and physical materials, and ‌what the report calls “the lived clothing experience of members”, which it concedes “may require sensitive change management support”.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 10 Comments
The Voice

Depeerage packages

By The Voice | Wed 1st April 2026 - 7:30 am

House of Lords. Photo: Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament

Ninety-two hereditary Peers of the Realm are packing up their ermine and saying farewell to their traditional home from home. As Liberal Democrats we are pleased that Parliament has taken one more step towards the full reform of the House of Lords – although we won’t rest until we have a fully elected Upper House.

But spare a thought for those departing peers. They are the product of families who have served this country for many hundreds of years, with many lifetimes of experience in scrutinising legislation. Many of them have been highly effective members and will be missed as individuals. Some will, no doubt, be returning as appointed life peers but the majority will just have to leave that exciting life behind them and go back to their mundane homes and families. We should acknowledge the contribution they have made to our country and help them to make the transition.

Liberal Democrats are proposing that departing hereditary peers should be offered a Depeerage Package. The exact contents are under debate but are expected to include the following:

  • Free lifetime access to the bars and dining rooms in the Palace of Westminster
  • Counselling services and yoga therapy for withdrawal symptoms
  • Access to a specialist private care home if needed
  • Severance lump sum calculated as two daily allowances for each year of service in the Lords.
  • Dedicated 24 hour help line – at least for the first year.
  • A farewell goodie bag containing aromatherapy oils, Jaffa cakes and a House of Lords teddy bear.

If you have any suggestions for additional items please tell us in the comments below.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Tanya Park

My existence is not an ideology

By Tanya Park | Tue 31st March 2026 - 9:11 am

I don’t usually write in the first person like this. But some arguments are better made from inside the experience than at a careful analytical distance. This is one of them.

There’s a phrase that’s been circulating in certain corners of British public life for a few years now. You’ll have heard it. Gender ideology. Sometimes trans ideology. It gets deployed with a specific kind of confidence: the confidence of someone who believes they are simply describing reality, neutrally, accurately, from nowhere in particular.

I am, apparently, an ideology.

I’ve tried to sit with that rather than immediately reaching for the rebuttal. To actually feel what it means to be told that your sense of self (the thing you have lived with, quietly and not always easily, for your entire life) is a belief system. A set of propositions. Something that can be adopted, spread, and ideally resisted. It’s a strange kind of alienation. Not painful in the sharp way that overt hostility is. More like being told that the room you’re standing in doesn’t exist.

But I’m a policy person as well as a trans person, and I can’t leave it at the feeling. Because the feeling is pointing at something real: a genuine category error that matters beyond the personal offence it causes.

An ideology is a systematic set of beliefs about how society should be organised: about who should have power, what values should govern public life, and what kind of world we should be building. It makes prescriptive claims. It tells you what ought to be true, not just what is true about someone’s experience. Ideologies have premises and conclusions. They identify threats. They generate political programmes. Liberalism is an ideology. Conservatism is an ideology. Socialism is an ideology. They are contestable positions in a debate about collective life. Keep that definition in mind, because we are going to apply it to a couple of things.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Rodrigo Palmer

A Liberal Steady-State Economy? 

By Rodrigo Palmer | Sun 29th March 2026 - 8:53 am

Our current economic models are not fit for purpose. They fail to tackle the social-ecological crisis. 

And people know this.

Since 2008, a pattern has emerged. From Brexit in 2016, to Boris’ victory in 2019, to Labour’s victory in 2024, the Greens and Reform’s ongoing political boom, all these political phenomena share one common thread. 

Frustration. Anger. Resentment towards the status quo.

And rightly so. 

Our political leaders, regardless of political party (excluding the Greens), all talk about “going for growth”. We blindly chase economic growth, but we never seem to ask the question: at what cost? Who does economic growth really serve? 

By following neoclassical economic theory, we create an economic system that can exist in a spectrum between two states: recession or growth. 

Our current economic system is designed so that when both extreme states occur, the most powerful benefit the most, and the poorest suffer the most whilst benefitting the least. 

We are sold the idea that anyone can invest in the stock market, invest successfully, and achieve monetary returns. But not everyone has the luxury to afford an investment portfolio, most people are barely scraping by. So when these companies grow, the returns mostly end up concentrated amongst those who have the largest and most diversified investment portfolios, disproportionately benefitting the richest and most powerful.

When there is a crash, we are told that “the big banks cannot fail”. Large corporations obfuscate by arguing they are the ‘engines’ of economic growth. Such power means they exert sizable influence over our political leaders, because they have the monetary power to  significantly influence a country’s economic outcomes. 

So we bail them out. More of our public money goes into private hands. 

What we are witnessing globally is a gradual, systemic transfer of wealth. Such an economic system is not inevitable. But when we choose to design our economies by following neoclassical, and more specifically neoliberal macroeconomic models, the system strongly reinforces the positions of the richest and most powerful. Such an economy denies the poorest and most vulnerable freedom, and is deeply illiberal.

It can be said that economic growth has taken people out of poverty. “There are millions who are no longer in poverty because of growth”, is a narrative frequently cheered by so-called “think tanks” such as the IEA. They would be right in some developing economies, but to what extent is this true in the UK? 

Certainly in our western, developed economies, there are many across the country who are yet to feel the benefits of economic growth. The Global Inequality Report 2026 paints a sobering picture of increasing global inequality. Trends clearly show increasing wealth inequality in the UK.

In neoclassical economic models, the Solow-Swan growth model shows how economies can theoretically deliver exponential economic growth. This is the dream scenario for our political leaders, because it means they can postpone making the much harder political choice of redistribution of wealth. 

However, the Solow-Swan model is incomplete. It does not account for the importance of exergy to growth, and largely omits the flows of material resources within an economy, which are subject to strict thermodynamic limits. Such a model suggests that economies can grow independently of material flows, with the economy being able to expand ex nihilo, which does not align with physical reality. 

Our economy is a physical, thermodynamic, non-equilibrium system that exists within the biosphere, transforming natural resources into useful products for human consumption. 

The steady-state economy offers a realistic and just alternative grounded in science. It does not reject markets, markets can allocate resources efficiently, albeit with some limitations. What the steady-state economy offers is stability. No booms, no busts. No “growth for growth’s sake”. Growth is only sought with evidence-based, scientific analysis to seek whether it is truly desirable.

We have clearly hit a stage where growth is no longer socially nor environmentally desirable. But we currently exist within an economic system in which growth is intrinsic to success. And this needs to change.

In order to reach a steady state economy, we require:

– The redistribution of wealth to the poorest in our society to have a socially just economy.
– A period of degrowth to have an economy within planetary limits.

Degrowth is a means to an end. It is not recession, nor is it austerity. Such analyses are based on the assumption that our economic system cannot be changed. That is not true. The need is clear, all we require is the political will. There are just and sensible policies which can be pursued to ensure that people’s social and material condition remains stable.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 38 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: War Powers

By Tom Arms | Sat 28th March 2026 - 9:37 am

America’s NATO allies are—according to Donald Trump—”cowards” for failing to join his war in Iran. He later added that the US would “never forget” the position of the Europeans at this “critical juncture” in world history.

Trump’s anti- NATO rants reveal an astonishing ignorance of the legal and political obstacles facing other world leaders who want to wage an ill- conceived and poorly executed war which threatens to escalate and plunge the world into economic depression.

It is not entirely clear how, but Trump alone of the world’s democracies appears to ride roughshod over international and domestic laws to wage a dangerous war.

America’s Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility that a dangerously hubristic individual might one day occupy the White House. That is why Article One of the US constitution gives Congress – not the president—the power to declare war.

There are, however, get-outs for a belligerent president to respond quickly to sudden attacks. For a start the Founding Fathers changed the wording of Article One from “make war” to “declare war.” The change was meant to allow the president to respond to a sudden attack—but not to initiate.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, the president’s war powers were restricted further with the 1973 War Powers Act. This legislation instructs the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of the start of military action. If Congress fails to approve the action then troops have to be withdrawn 60 days. There is room for a further 30-day extension if required—but that’s it.

Congress also has the power of the purse which means that it can simply refuse funds to finance the fighting. The Iran War is costing $1 billion a day which is coming out of the existing defense budget. Tump, however, is said to be planning to ask Congress for an additional $200 billion.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 4 Comments
Kieron Franks

We need to do more to sell the story of a Liberal Britain

By Kieron Franks | Fri 27th March 2026 - 9:39 am

I know that I’m not alone in contemplating what our next steps as a party are. We see the Greens and Reforms cut through on the media circuit and their memberships have seen stark rises as a result. Whilst each of these parties have almost diametrically opposed platforms, they do have one thing in common: having a vision for the country they want to see.

Reform is selling a “return” to a rose-tinted view of the past, where Britain stood alone and strong and where their interpretation of traditional values made the world less confusing. As Liberals, we understand that what makes Britain great is its strong internationalism and global relationships that build wealth for everyone, rather than squabbling over ever-decreasing portions of the pie as others seek to build walls and sow division. We know that for many of those leading Reform, traditional values mean a return to deference, letting the rich take advantage while everyone else is left to fight over the little that remains.

The Greens meanwhile are selling a future where everyone is free to succeed and live free of poverty and conformity, as well as creating a carbon-free society. Unsurprisingly, that is an aspiration we share! However, the Greens fall down in having no idea how to get there, with their leader offering whatever he thinks will gain them votes, even if that ultimately moves them further away from their goal. They also misunderstand that aspiration is not a negative but a fundamental aspect of society that pushes us to innovate and achieve more as individuals and as a collective society.

Each of these views is enticing to some aspect of a society that seems fundamentally broken. Quality of life is something that seems like a distant memory, rather than something achievable. Young people are feeling left behind as it become ever more difficult to reach the life that was sold to them as the reward for all of their hard work. No wonder why so many feel disenfranchised and left behind by the system.

The good news is that we have already have a plan for a Liberal Britain, one where these aspirations are achievable, rather than a pipe dream  – it is laid out in page after page of party policy! We have a plan that can create a world where everyone has a home and small businesses can thrive as part of a culture that celebrates a diverse economy and society. Indeed, in many parts of the country, Lib Dem-led councils are doing their bit to make this vision a reality, building affordable homes and providing services that make their corner of Britain a better place to live. But they can’t do this by themselves.

Continue reading »
18 Comments
Wera Hobhouse MP

Recycled words of criticism are not enough: marine mammals must be protected beyond our shores

By Wera Hobhouse MP | Thu 26th March 2026 - 2:05 pm

The hunting of cetaceans in the Faroe Islands has brought into sharp focus what many of us already understand – the health of our oceans matters to us all.

The hunts, known as the grindadráp, see dolphins driven into shallow bays and killed in a practice that has drawn widespread concern for animal welfare.

Images of these brutally killed animals sit uneasily with our ambitions for a more sustainable, humane, and internationally engaged future. And these ambitions do not have borders.

Although some choose to defend the grind as tradition, all the evidence shows most Faroese people do not participate in the hunts, and that women overwhelmingly oppose them. This indicates that the practice may not reflect broad popular consent, and that a transparent and open conversation is needed on whether this practice should continue.

The Faroe Islands, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, lie just 200 miles north of the Scottish coast. The marine species of the North Atlantic do not respect borders, and neither should our commitment to their protection given these are cetaceans that live in the waters that we share.

For the Liberal Democrats, environmental stewardship and high standards of animal welfare are fundamental principles. We believe in evidence-led policy, international cooperation, and sustainable practices that respect life and ecology wherever they occur.

Throughout my time in Parliament, I have consistently championed environmental protection, biodiversity, and sustainable practices.

As Vice-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Environment, I work with colleagues cross-party to promote responsible stewardship of our natural world. Protecting whales and dolphins from practices that raise serious welfare and conservation concerns is integral to this.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
Kamran Hussain

An attack on one community is an attack on us all

By Kamran Hussain | Thu 26th March 2026 - 11:37 am

Earlier on this week, ambulances belonging to a Jewish volunteer emergency medical service were deliberately attacked outside a synagogue in Golders Green, one of London’s most established Jewish neighbourhoods.

These were not military vehicles. They were not symbols of any state or government. They were ambulances. Vehicles whose sole purpose is to save lives, staffed by volunteers who respond to emergencies. They were targeted because they serve the Jewish community and this should shake every one of us to the core.

This was not an isolated incident. It sits within a deeply troubling pattern. The Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents across the UK in 2025, more than double the figure from 2022. In October 2025, two Jewish worshippers were killed in a car-ramming and stabbing attack outside a Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. Across Europe, explosions and attacks have struck Jewish schools and synagogues. The message being sent to Jewish communities is unmistakable and unconscionable: you are not safe.

As Liberals, we must say clearly and without equivocation: antisemitism is a poison, and it is rising. It is rising on the far right, where conspiracy theories about Jewish power have never gone away. It is rising in certain strands of discourse around the Middle East, where legitimate criticism of a government slides into the demonisation of an entire nation. And it is rising in the everyday in the abuse hurled at visibly Jewish people on public transport, in the graffiti daubed on synagogue walls, in the casual remarks that go unchallenged in workplaces and on social media. We cannot claim to be a party of human rights and look the other way.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 20 Comments
Tanya Park

You can’t cite Cass and cancel the trial

By Tanya Park | Wed 25th March 2026 - 10:55 am

Somewhere in England right now, a teenager and their family are waiting. They have been waiting, in many cases, for more than five years just to see a specialist. Not for a diagnosis of cancer or a referral for surgery. For someone to talk to about their gender. While they wait, puberty continues. For some of them, that process is a cause of profound, daily distress.

That is what this debate is actually about. Earlier this week, Westminster Hall debated a petition calling for the cancellation of the PATHWAYS clinical trial into puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria. The trial had already been paused in February after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency raised concerns about the trial design. Many MPs, drawn from Labour, the Conservatives, Reform and the DUP, used the debate not to call for those concerns to be resolved, but to demand the trial be scrapped altogether.

Their arguments were passionate, often sincere, and in some cases carefully researched. They also contained a contradiction so fundamental it deserves to be named plainly.

Many of those MPs, when the Cass review was published in 2024, demanded it be implemented in full. Several cited Hilary Cass’s authority in the debate itself to justify their opposition to the trial. What they appear not to have noticed, or to have chosen to overlook, is that the Cass review explicitly recommended a clinical trial. That trial was meant to be the mechanism for building the evidence base they say is lacking.

A point of precision matters here. Cass did not personally endorse the PATHWAYS design in every detail. But she did recommend a trial, and when the MHRA paused recruitment she said publicly that no new research findings justified the change, and that the decision felt like a response to political pressure rather than science. The scientist those MPs invoke to close down the research is concerned it is being closed down for the wrong reasons. That is not a minor irony. It is the entire argument.

Puberty blockers are not new drugs. They have been used for decades to treat precocious puberty, where children as young as six or seven begin puberty far too early. In those cases, the same drugs, in the same doses, are prescribed to comparable or even younger children, frequently for longer periods of time. Nobody in Westminster Hall called for that use to be reviewed. Nobody described those children as being experimented on.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Elections kick off – six exhilarating weeks ahead

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 25th March 2026 - 8:36 am

It’s that time of year again. My social media feeds are all full of pictures of groups of people out canvassing or leafletting, of people handing in their nomination papers.

It must be the start of the “official” campaign for the huge array of national and local elections coming up on May 7th.

The Scottish Parliament, the Senedd in Wales and every Council seat in London is up for grabs along with local elections around the country from Liverpool to some places where they didn’t know until a few weeks ago that the elections were back on again.

I have to show you …

Continue reading »
Also posted in News | Tagged , , , , and | 3 Comments
Derek Meyer

The rules rule

By Derek Meyer | Tue 24th March 2026 - 3:41 pm

The Liberal Democrats have long prided themselves on being upholders of the rule of law and defenders of legal principles – a David standing against the philistine Trump in defence of the rules-based international order.

This plays well within the party, but it is worth asking whether this framing is as effective with the electorate as we assume. We risk misreading the national mood and how international law is understood by many voters. More importantly, our own policy positions do not always reflect the consistency that this stance implies.

Take illegal immigration, one of the most emotive issues in British politics today. Many voters see the issue in stark terms: illegal immigration is illegal, yet those arriving illegally are not prosecuted and are instead supported with accommodation and services.

Continue reading »
13 Comments
Leon Duveen

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

By Leon Duveen | Tue 24th March 2026 - 11:41 am

At his first inauguration as US President, back in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt famously said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”.

Over 90 years later, that phrase could be applied to the Palestine/Israel conflict or, more precisely, to Palestinians and Israeli Jews. The biggest driver in preventing a solution is that Palestinians fear Israelis and Israelis fear Palestinians.

Of course, many individual Palestinians and Israelis have friends, good friends, on the “other” side but there are also many more who do not have any contact across the divide except through the ongoing violence as participants, as victims, or simply as observers.

It is this lack of knowledge about the lives, the desires, the pain of those who live close by but in a different world that has allowed cynical politicians on both sides to exploit the natural fear most of us have of those who we don’t know. Especially when there has been a long, bloody history of attacks and atrocities by both sides for over 100 years.

Continue reading »
Also posted in Europe / International | Tagged and | 6 Comments
Gavin Stollar

A moment that demands we speak – and act

By Gavin Stollar | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 8:01 pm

There are moments in politics when silence is not neutrality, it is complicity. As Honorary Chair of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, and as a Jew, I know what those moments look like. We have just witnessed one.

In north London, Jewish ambulances – volunteer-run, life-saving services – were burned outside a synagogue. Not vandalised. Not graffitied. Burned. Deliberately. Because they were Jewish.

This does not sit in isolation.

We have seen attacks in Bondi. We have seen the murder of Jews at synagogues in Manchester. We are seeing a pattern – one that crosses borders and contexts but is united by a single, undeniable thread: Jews being targeted because they are Jews.

We can debate policy in the Middle East. We can – and should – disagree, robustly and respectfully. But this is not that. This is not protest. This is not “context”.This is antisemitism, plain and simple, expressed through intimidation, violence and murder.

And here is the uncomfortable truth: our response, as a Party and as a movement, matters just as much as the acts themselves.

Because words have consequences.

When we soften our language, when we hedge, when we reach for “on all sides” statements in moments that require moral clarity, we create space. Space that is filled by those who do not share our liberal values. Space that is exploited by Islamist ideologies that do not begin with Jews, but so often start there.

If we are blind to that – if we tell ourselves this is isolated, or complicated, or someone else’s problem – then we are on a very slippery slope.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: hatred against Jewish People and Muslims must be confronted – together

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 5:00 pm

The shocking attack overnight on a Jewish volunteer ambulance service in London should horrify anyone who believes in a decent, civilised society. Four vehicles belonging to Hatzola, an organisation providing lifesaving emergency care, were deliberately set on fire in what police are treating as an antisemitic hate crime.

Let us be absolutely clear about what this represents. This was not just vandalism. It was not just criminal damage. This was an attack on a community, on people trying to save lives, on the very idea that we can live together in mutual respect. It must be condemned without hesitation or qualification.

But if we are serious about confronting hatred, we must also be consistent. Just as antisemitism must be called out wherever it appears, so too must the growing problem of anti-Muslim hatred in our country. Britain has also seen attacks on mosques and violence directed against Muslims in recent times, including incidents linked to rising Islamophobic rhetoric.

There is a dangerous temptation in politics and on social media to treat racism and religious hatred as if they are competing problems. As if acknowledging one somehow diminishes the other. As if we must choose which prejudice we take seriously. This is not just morally wrong. It is intellectually bankrupt.

Hatred is hatred. Whether it targets a synagogue or a mosque. Whether it is directed at a Jewish paramedic or a Muslim family. Whether it comes from the far Right, the hard Left, religious extremism, or conspiracy-fuelled online toxicity.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | Leave a comment
Rosemary Runswick

Did the Party accidentally vote for a Surveillance State?

By Rosemary Runswick | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 3:15 pm

A social media ban for under-16s is a controversial topic, it’s a measure many consider authoritarian, but some see the potential value; after all, social media has been linked to declining mental health in children. But a ban would be the worst solution, not only due to the fact it could disconnect vulnerable children from their communities as others have already warned, but because it is in fact a potential national security risk. Banning Social Media for under-16s could only work in one way; through the establishment of mass-surveillance.

As we have already seen with the need for ID to view content for over-18s, this surveillance state would not be Government owned, but outsourced to private companies. This is dangerous for a few reasons, most obviously being that these companies already collect and sell our data for a profit to whoever wants to push their agenda, whether that be harmless advertising or more worryingly, political manipulation. Additionally, whichever company got hold of all this data would instantly become a focal point for data breachers who would want access to a whole range of private accounts, from your bank account to your phone.

Sarah Kunst, who is involved with several Lib Dem donor groups had the following to say to me on the topic:

I invest in cybersecurity and the ban has me freaking out because the only way to enforce it is handing over all biometric data and IDs to companies like Persona (backed by Peter Thiel, already gives info to the US Government). It will be the biggest betrayal of British people possibly ever because, if there is a hack of the biometric database, it will mean that everyone is forever compromised (unless you get new eyes!) and the fraud vector is unimaginable. I truly think supporting it is treasonous and I cannot fathom how security services didn’t shut this horrific idea down.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 13 Comments
Sal Aziz

From Devon to York: why the Conference Access Fund matters

By Sal Aziz | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 1:05 pm

I arrived in York late on Friday night after a long drive up from Devon, tired but excited. By Saturday morning, that excitement had to do some heavy lifting, the journey had taken its toll. But a gentle drive through the Yorkshire countryside, past Selby and into the city, was enough to reset my energy. Conference weekend had begun.

Walking into the Barbican, I was immediately struck by the scale. Having attended Welsh conferences before, I thought I knew what to expect, but this was something else entirely. Busier, louder, and full of excitement. I started in the exhibition hall, spending some time at the Liberal Democrat Disability Association (LDDA) stall, before taking a lap of the venue to get my bearings (a necessary task, as it turned out!).

One of the first things I did was head across the city to a training session on “Winning against the Greens.” We rightly spend a lot of time discussing how to challenge the far-right, but this session explored another growing political reality: the rise of left-wing and far-left support. As a trade unionist, I see this shift up close. With disaffiliation from Labour being discussed increasingly in some unions, there is a real opportunity, and responsibility, for the Liberal Democrats to present a credible alternative: rooted in evidence, compassion, and liberal values, not populism.

Back at the Barbican, it was time for one of the moments I had been most invested in: the debate on policy motion F12. As a member of the Liberal Democrat Psychoactive Policy Group, I had been involved in work behind the scenes to strengthen the motion, particularly to include pharmacologically assisted therapies, such as psilocybin. When I was unexpectedly called to speak early in the debate, it became my first speech at Federal Conference. I spoke from lived experience, both as a mental health patient and as someone working within mental health services, about why these treatments matter, and why this is a fundamentally liberal approach to policy. I also referenced the recent Welsh Liberal Democrat motion supporting medical cannabis patients, highlighting how our party can lead with compassion and evidence.

Continue reading »
Also posted in Conference | Tagged | 1 Comment
Jean-François Burford

Education in 2050: Preparing Today for Tomorrow’s Schools

By Jean-François Burford | Mon 23rd March 2026 - 9:45 am

Imagine a classroom where every student is learning something different, guided by technology that adapts instantly to their needs. Some collaborate with peers across the world, while others receive tailored support from artificial intelligence tutors. The teacher is no longer delivering a single lesson to the whole class, but acting as a mentor, supporting creativity, discussion, and critical thinking. This is not a distant fantasy, but a realistic picture of education in 2050.

The schools of the future will look very different from those many of us remember. Traditional models: rows of desks, fixed timetables, and a heavy reliance on memorisation; are already evolving. By 2050, education is likely to be more personalised, more connected, and more closely aligned with the demands of a rapidly changing world. The challenge for governments today is not whether change will come, but whether they are prepared to shape it.

A defining feature of future education will be personalised learning. Advances in artificial intelligence will allow lessons to adapt in real time to each student’s progress. Instead of moving at the same pace, learners will receive support or acceleration as needed. This approach has the potential to make education both more effective and more equitable, ensuring that no student is left behind or held back.

Technology will also transform the role of teachers. Rather than serving primarily as sources of information, teachers will increasingly become facilitators of learning. Digital tools will assist with grading, feedback, and routine tasks, freeing up time for educators to focus on developing students’ creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence. In this way, technology will enhance, rather than replace, the human element of teaching.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Ukonu Abasi

President Bola Tinubu ‘s state visit to the United Kingdom, a Nigerian Liberal Democrat’s take on it. 

By Ukonu Abasi | Sat 21st March 2026 - 10:00 am

President Bola Tinubu of Nigeria came to the United Kingdom for a State visit from 18th to 19th March. This is a historic event as it is the first state visit by a Nigerian leader since 1989, when then military head of state Ibrahim Babangida was received by late Queen Elizabeth II. President Tinubu is the first Nigerian president to receive a state visit since the return of democracy to Nigerian in 1999. Considering the historic relationship of Nigerian and United Kingdom as Nigeria is a former colony, and Nigeria itself as a key player in the African continent and most populous black nation in the world, the visit signals a thawing of relationship between the two nations, which can only be a good thing for the two nations. 

Is it as simple as that? Is it all positive and we can all clap and cheer for this positive move in global geopolitics? No, hold the champagne and let’s examine the implications and the issues that this visit tries to gloss over. The impression that this visit gives is that Nigeria is doing well and that this administration has turned things around for the citizenry. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nigeria is worse off by every measure since the All Progressive Congress (APC) party of Tinubu took over in 2015 under former president Buhari, now late. And since Tinubu himself took over in 2023, things have gotten even worse; terrorism has continued to rise, kidnapping, banditry, economonic hardship, corruption and mismanagement of resources have all become all too common, to the point of being routine in Nigeria. Nigeria has always been known as a corrupt nation; it was former PM David Cameron who famously said that Nigeria was fantastically corrupt under Buhari’s APC administration, but it would now be argued that the government under Tinubu has made corruption under Buhari seem like a dress rehearsal. 

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
Gavin Stollar

Rape cannot depend on politics – a liberal lesson from 7th October

By Gavin Stollar | Sat 21st March 2026 - 8:51 am

Liberal Democrats believe in universal human rights. The response to evidence of sexual violence on 7th October should be straightforward. Yet too often, when the victims are Israelis, the instinct to “believe survivors” suddenly becomes contested.

If rape is used as a weapon of war, liberals should have no difficulty condemning it. That should be true whether the victims are in Bosnia, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo – or Israel. And yet, in the aftermath of the 7th October attacks, a disturbing double standard has appeared in parts of Western political debate. Evidence that women were sexually assaulted during the massacre has not been met everywhere with solidarity or outrage, but with hesitation, scepticism and, in some cases, outright denial. For those of us who believe in universal human rights, that should be deeply troubling. If recognition of sexual violence depends on the politics of the conflict, the principle itself is hollow.

The attacks carried out by Hamas that day were among the worst terrorist atrocities in modern history. Around 1,200 people were murdered, and hundreds more taken hostage. Alongside the killings, evidence quickly emerged that sexual violence – including rape – had taken place during the assault. Investigators, journalists, first responders and eventually international bodies reported signs that women had been sexually assaulted during the attacks and while in captivity. And this week, the 7th October Parliamentary Commission publishes its second report into the atrocities committed that day. Its work matters because documentation and evidence are the foundation of accountability. Without them, atrocities risk being lost in political argument and misinformation.

For decades, progressives rightly pushed for a cultural shift in how societies respond to allegations of sexual violence. Survivors were too often dismissed, interrogated or disbelieved. Feminist activism taught that survivors should not be met first with scepticism, but with seriousness and compassion. Yet when Israeli women are among the victims, the standards of belief suddenly appear to change. Some who would normally insist on listening now demand levels of proof rarely available after mass atrocities. Where are the police reports, they ask. Where is the forensic evidence? Where are the witnesses willing to testify publicly? Anyone familiar with conflict-related sexual violence knows why those questions are so difficult to answer. Many victims were murdered. Crime scenes were not preserved because emergency workers were focused on saving lives and recovering bodies. Families understandably wish to protect dignity and privacy. These challenges are tragically common in wartime atrocities and precisely why international law has evolved to investigate and prosecute sexual violence in conflict through tribunals and the International Criminal Court. To treat them as evidence that crimes did not occur risks undermining that entire system.

Our Party is committed to liberal internationalism, so the response should be simple. Sexual violence in conflict is a grave violation of humanitarian law. It must be investigated wherever it occurs and whoever commits it. If we demand accountability in some conflicts but dismiss allegations in others because they complicate politics, we erode the credibility of the entire human rights system. The rule of law cannot function on selective outrage. Nor can feminist foreign policy succeed if empathy depends on the identity of the victim. Recognising sexual violence as a weapon of war and supporting survivors wherever it appears is not optional. Anything less is partisanship, not feminism.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 9 Comments
Jack Meredith

Why Liberal Democrats should back cooperative housing

By Jack Meredith | Fri 20th March 2026 - 11:46 am

In my last article, I argued that democratic capitalism should not stop at the ballot box. But the argument should not stop at the workplace either. If Liberal Democrats care about dispersing power, we should care about housing too.

For liberals, that means resisting concentrations of power. For liberal social democrats, it also means asking whether ordinary people have sufficient security, voice, and control within the institutions that shape their daily lives. Housing is one of the clearest tests of that question.

Housing is not just another market commodity. It shapes security, family life, community belonging, and whether people feel they have any real control over the conditions of their lives.

That is why housing cooperatives deserve more attention. They allow residents to become collective stakeholders in the places they live, rather than passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere. Their appeal is not just economic; it’s about empowering people through democratic control and shared governance, giving them a meaningful say in their communities. Recognising housing as a key site of power should inspire us to act for a fairer distribution of influence and security.

That speaks directly to a liberal social-democratic concern. A fair society should not rely solely on redistribution after the fact. It should also build institutions that spread power, widen security, and give people a stake from the outset. In housing, that means looking beyond the narrow choice between an overcentralised state and a speculative market, and taking seriously models based on shared control and mutual responsibility.

There is a strong case for community politics in cooperatives. They help keep resources rooted locally, reduce wealth leakage, and foster stability and self-reliance. Supporting them can strengthen political efficacy and economic resilience, a point that should resonate with those who believe in empowering local communities.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 18 Comments
Tanya Park

From parking spaces to living spaces: the opportunity hiding in NCP’s collapse

By Tanya Park | Thu 19th March 2026 - 12:09 pm

National Car Parks entered administration this week, and the coverage has followed a predictable script: jobs at risk, iconic brand in trouble, another casualty of post-pandemic Britain. All true. But the real story isn’t about what’s being lost. It’s about what could be gained.

NCP operates 340 car parks across the UK – at airports, hospitals, railway stations, and city centres. That’s 200,000 parking spaces sitting on some of the most strategically located urban land in the country. Land with road access, public transport links, and existing planning permissions for intensive use. And right now, it’s available at a fraction of its market value.

The government should be picking up the phone.

What killed NCP – and why it matters

The company’s debts exceeded its assets by £305 million. Demand for city-centre parking never recovered to pre-pandemic levels, and NCP was locked into long-term, inflexible leases on sites it couldn’t afford to operate. The business model broke because people’s behaviour changed: more remote working, fewer commuter journeys, a gradual shift away from the car-dependent patterns that made NCP profitable for nine decades.

This isn’t a temporary blip. It’s a structural correction. And structural corrections create structural opportunities – if someone is willing to act.

The opportunity: triage, don’t rescue

The case isn’t for bailing out a failed business. It’s for acquiring a portfolio of strategically important land and infrastructure out of administration at distressed prices, then putting it to work for the public good.

A sensible approach would triage the sites into three categories. First, the essential infrastructure: car parks at hospitals, airports, and major transport hubs where parking isn’t a convenience but a necessity. These should be acquired and leased to local authorities or NHS trusts to operate, generating revenue while protecting access to critical public services.

Second, and this is where it gets exciting, the city-centre sites where parking demand has permanently declined. These are large, flat plots or multi-storey structures on generous footprints, sitting in exactly the locations where Britain most desperately needs social housing. The land is already serviced, already accessible, and already zoned for intensive use. Mixed-use development with retained ground-floor parking could serve both needs simultaneously.

Third, sites that are neither strategically important nor suitable for housing get sold back into the private market, with the proceeds helping fund the first two categories.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 11 Comments
Jack Meredith

Democratic capitalism should not stop at the ballot box

By Jack Meredith | Thu 19th March 2026 - 9:52 am

Liberal Democrats are, at our best, a party of power and of how it is used, utilising social-democratic and liberal ideas.

We have long understood that freedom is not secured simply by declaring rights. It depends on how power is distributed across society; who holds it, who can challenge it, and whether it is accountable. That instinct has shaped our commitment to constitutional reform, civil liberties, and the decentralisation of the state.

But there is one area where this liberal insight remains underdeveloped: the economy.

We pride ourselves on living in a democratic society. Yet for most people, the place where they spend a third of their lives, the workplace, remains one of the least democratic institutions they encounter. Decisions about how work is organised, how profits are distributed, and how firms are run are typically made without meaningful input from those most affected.

Traditional social democrats have responded to this through trade unions, and rightly so. Unions remain an essential part of a fair economy, giving workers a voice and protection within existing structures. But even at its best, this model operates within a system that separates labour from ownership, requiring workers to organise collectively to negotiate with those who ultimately hold power.

A liberal social-democratic approach invites us to go one step further. It asks not only how we protect workers within the system, but how we design the system itself so that power is more evenly distributed from the outset.

This is where worker cooperatives deserve renewed attention.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 7 Comments
Jack Carter

Why Liberals must extinguish the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ 

By Jack Carter | Wed 18th March 2026 - 12:46 pm

On Tuesday afternoon, I found myself scrolling Twitter – as one does (even if it invokes a sense of despair) – and could not help but feel disgusted by how so many speak of their peers. Social media has always brought out antisocial tendencies in some people, and it’s a well-studied psychological phenomenon. Except I’m not sure it’s just a phenomenon anymore. While most people in the real world are relatively nice and prosocial, over the last few years we have seen grievance politics bleed into the real world – with dangerous consequences

In the wake of the Southport murders, in which three poor little girls had their lives stolen from them, we saw how communities clashed with one another. People were whipped up by opportunists and hate merchants, many took to the streets and looted shops, attacked police officers, Mosques were vandalised – and people tried to set fire to a hotel housing asylum seekers. Every society faces moments where people are angry, where social cohesion is fracturing, and where people weaponize discontent for their own benefit. But this is growing out of control.

Just before I started writing this I saw a tweet from Nick Timothy, the Tory MP for West Suffolk and Shadow Justice Secretary. He attached to this tweet a video of Muslims praying in Trafalgar Square, including Sadiq Khan, and unapologetically called it an “act of domination and division”. This rhetoric isn’t just confined to the darkest corners where the far-right mingle, but it is being espoused by Members of Parliament, and being fuelled by bots, trolls, and agitators. While this may seem hyperbolic to some, I fear that this poses a grave threat to all of us, and it’s worth taking seriously.

I don’t care about whether a badger is put on a bank note, and nor should our party’s leader. We should not give oxygen to petty, transient squabbles published in tabloids, but we seriously need to consider how we address this breakdown in social cohesion. It is simply not enough to abstractly call out Reform’s divisive politics, and it does not stand up for those being affected by the culture war politics of today. We should have no fear in holding people like Nick Timothy MP to account, nor should we sit by and let outrage merchants tarnish social cohesion for profit.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 4 Comments
Thomas Worth

The Green Threat

By Thomas Worth | Wed 18th March 2026 - 8:55 am

A post on X from Luke Tryl, the UK Director of More in Common, the other day changed how I viewed the rise of the Green Party. The post was in response to the latest polling from Ipsos, which had us sitting on just 9%, the lowest we’ve polled since the 2024 General Election. 

In the post he said, ‘If the Lib Dems go into May with the Greens eating at their progressive flank it could well limit their gains in e.g. the new East and West Surrey councils, Sussex and other south east districts’. As a longstanding member in Sussex this obviously concerned me, so I set about trying to disprove his notion.

Unfortunately, I now believe he may be correct. Firstly, while we often think of the rise of the Greens eating away at the Labour vote, which it most certainly is, our polling is not untouched. According to YouGov, those who voted Lib Dem at the 2024 election, and say they will again, stood at 80% in May 2025 but now sit at only 68%. While this is better than most other parties, only 44% of 2024 Labour voters say they’ll vote for the party again; it is a notable shift in our polling. Almost all of this change has been caused by the Greens, with only 3% of 2024 Lib Dems saying they’d vote for the Greens in May 2025 to now, when the figure stands at 17%.

The steady march of the Greens amongst 2024 Lib Dems is likely to pose real problems in the local elections. While it isn’t likely the Greens will take seats from us, it is possible they will prevent us from making gains by splitting our vote and allowing Reform or a wounded Conservative Party to slip through the middle. In Sussex, signs of this happening were occurring even before Zack Polanski took over the Greens. At Horsham District Council’s Denne by-election in November 2024, a strong showing from the Greens meant that a safe Lib Dem ward was gained by the Tories. A similar story occurred at Arun District Council’s Marine by-election, where Reform gained the seat, with us placing a close second due to the Greens standing a candidate for the first time. 

With the Greens now having a stronger base of voters, they are more likely to cause us damage in places like Sussex, where we need to be making gains to consolidate our General Election wins. 

Other polling also paints a difficult picture. While Ed Davey has remained one of the most popular party leaders, he has now been overtaken by Zack Polanski in an important metric, those who say they ‘don’t know’. According to Ipsos, 36% of voters don’t know their opinion on Ed Davey, while 33% don’t know about Zack Polanski. While this isn’t a major difference, Ed Davey has been party leader for 6 years and still has over a third of people not holding an opinion on him. In comparison, Zack Polanski has only been the Green leader for just over 6 months and has already overtaken Sir Ed. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 42 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Sadness and pride as Scottish Asssisted Dying Bill falls

By Caron Lindsay | Tue 17th March 2026 - 11:19 pm

I’m full of emotion tonight. Sad that the Scottish Parliament rejected the Assisted Dying (Terminally Ill Adults) Bill which would have made us the first nation in the UK to allow assisted dying for those with less than 6 months to live if they wanted it.

After a week of late night sittings considering amendments, the Bill fell at its final hurdle by 57 votes to 69.

I’m also proud, though. Immensely proud. Liam McArthur could have done no more. His calm, his persuasive efforts to build support for this measure beyond any of its predecessors, taking it through to …

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 1 Comment
Tanya Park

Invisible at Wembley: what the Liberal Democrats keep getting wrong on trans rights

By Tanya Park | Tue 17th March 2026 - 6:05 pm

On Wednesday night, ten thousand people filled OVO Arena Wembley for Trans Mission: A Solidarity Concert. It was a four-hour, star-studded declaration that trans people in this country are not alone – and that the hostility directed at them is not going unanswered. Olly Alexander, the Sugababes, Wolf Alice, Adam Lambert, Ian McKellen reading Shakespeare. A mother speaking about her daughter Alice, who is no longer alive, asking the crowd to dance for those who can no longer dance for themselves. A standing ovation that shook the building.

One politician was on that stage. Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, received what was described as the warmest of welcomes. His speech was filmed, shared, and celebrated. His post-event tweet gathered nearly 144,000 views.

Ed Davey was also there that night.

You would not know it from anything the party put out.

Continue reading »
7 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • paul barker
    @David Evans In London we ran on Competence & Hard Work, we made gains in places where we already ran The Council, everywhere else we went backward or went...
  • Peter Hirst
    Entering a race implies usually a commitment to win it. The idea should be not to win a hyporthetical AI race but to find the best compromise between using it w...
  • Peter Hirst
    You might get more volunteers if it was clearer that they have influence over who is approved and selected for Westminster seats compared with the Westminster o...
  • Peter Hirst
    You don't mention our so called independent nuclear deterrent. There is no reason why we can't merge it with France's. Why on earth do you need two nuclear dete...
  • David Evans
    The one thing that this article shows is that it is impossible to establish a strategy that makes us clearly different from the other parties if we stick to our...