Category Archives: Op-eds

Tom Arms’ World Review

USA – Trump

I may have written too early and ill-advisedly when last week I predicted the political decline of Donald Trump.

His delayed indictment in the Stormy Daniels case has finally hit the newsstands and the ex-president is deftly using his victimhood to rally his political base. “This is,” he said “political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history.”

Clearly the man never studied the classics or medieval European history.

But this has not stopped the conspiracy theorists from flooding cyber space with outlandish claims and threats of civil war. Qanon was quick to tweet that Trump is waging a secret war “against a network of Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media.” It added ominously: “We are ready when you are…Mr President.”

Trump’s opponents in the race for the Republican nomination – Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis – are also lining up behind the ex-president to condemn the indictment as a witch hunt. They are all afraid of alienating Trump’s political base.

But how big is that base? For a start, a significant proportion of Trump’s base in the 2016 and 2020 elections were White evangelical Christians. They comprise roughly a quarter of the American population and 80 percent of them voted for Trump.

However, a large proportion of the Evangelicals are one issue voters – abortion. They have won that battle with Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. They are unlikely to shift their allegiance to “socialist” Joe Biden but Trump’s apparent lack of morals could pull them towards one of the other Republican hopefuls, an independent third candidate or abstention.

That still leaves a sizable chunk of Trump supporters who have now been galvanised by their leader’s imminent arrest. Their reaction is the major unknown in American politics, and, following the Capitol Hill riots, potentially worrying. There may even be enough Trump supporters within the Republican Party to secure him the nomination. In fact, as of this week, he is 30 points ahead of his nearest challenger Ron DeSantis. But that could be the end of Trump’s political road. The country is hopelessly split between Republicans and Democrats. The balance lies with the roughly thirty percent of the voting population who are registered independents. They, and disenchanted evangelicals and moderate Republicans are unlikely to cast their vote for a felon, or even an alleged felon.

USA – guns

There are lots of reasons Americans have more guns than people – 395 million shooters for 336 million people.

There is the pioneer Wild West culture, Hollywood’s glorification of gun culture, personal and family protection, law enforcement, recreational target shooting, hunting and, of course, the pursuit of criminal objectives.

To my mind, the most worrying reason is protection of the individual from the government. This is one of the arguments by the National Rifle Association and politicians such as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. It is a justification which dates back to the 1689 English Bill of Rights when citizens were guaranteed the right to carry guns as a defense against the imposition of a Catholic monarch.

This fear of “big government” using its power to deny Americans basic human rights was one of the reasons for the Second Amendment. They had, after all, just fought a revolution against a government which had blocked their liberties.

The problem for gun advocates is that society and politics has moved on from the 18th century. We have now had 240 years of American governments elected by universal franchise (except for women who did not secure the right to vote until 1920) to pass laws to protect them. If the gun lobby has a problem with lack of representation in federal government then it should use the legal instruments in the US constitution to amend it.

Instead its solution is more guns. Guns in schools. Guns in churches. Guns in shops and theatres and guns in homes. Following the latest school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, there are new reasons. Shootings are not a gun problem. They are a mental health problem. There are also, it is being argued post-Nashville, now a transgender problem because the shooter was a transgender person.

Very few Americans dare to suggest that the guns themselves are the problem. This is because the Second Amendment has become a political sacred cow.

Tagged , , , , , and | 6 Comments

Happy April 1st!

We hope you enjoyed our traditional offering as much as we enjoyed putting it together.

The star of the piece, our party President Mark Pack, had his own news splash on Ed Davey’s battlebus with a difference.

And so the party’s cheese-merchants-in-chief have been bashing around ideas to replace a traditional battlebus with something more eye-catching.

Which is why that local election launch featured Ed Davey in a tractor.

If you watched very closely, you’ll have seen that he wasn’t driving it, but rather had a driver beside him, a press officer squeezed in behind them both next to a compact coffee machine, with a trailer pulled along behind loaded up with a group of mannequins.

For the choice of a tractor wasn’t a subtle jibe at the previous Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton. Rather, it was a test for doing a leader’s election tour by tractor.

Neil Fawcett, who also featured briefly in our piece, made his own announcement on Facebook, presumably to detract attention:

Two recent events have triggered a decision I have been mulling over for some time:
1 The refusal by Party President Mark Pack to allow an emergency meeting of the FCEC to discuss my proposal that we should use an electric tractor, rather than a diesel one, for the recent ‘blue wall’ stunt;
2 The release of the frankly excellent album, I Saw, A Star Behind Your Eyes, Don’t Let It Fade Away, by my talented Green councillor colleague Robin Bennett. (Fans of the Byrds, CSNY etc. will love it.)
As a result, I will be switching to join the Greens with immediate effect.

Given that Neil is genuinely indispensable, I’m very glad this is an April Fool.

One of my personal favourites was the Scotsman’s scoop of a new statue of Nicola Sturgeon to be erected in the Scottish Parliament. One of the big real news stories in Scotland at the moment is the absolute horlicks the SNP Government has made of building ferries but every cloud appears to have a silver lining:

Tagged | 8 Comments

Observations of an expat: Asian Stew

The current president of Taiwan is in America. Her immediate predecessor is in China. Meanwhile Beijing and Washington are slipping deeper into a dangerous stew of suspicion, enmity and mutual recriminations.

The visit to America by President Tsai Ing-wen is unofficial. It has to be to mute Chinese objections. But even unofficial visits by the Taiwanese raise the ire of Beijing and in this case the protests will be louder than usual because on April 5th President Tsai flies to California to meet Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy and other Republican leaders.

President Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party are not flavour of the decade in Beijing. They lean towards a separate and independent Taiwan, although President Tsai is careful to avoid an explicit policy. She has cautiously declared: “Taiwan is already an independent state, thus rendering a formal declaration of independence is unnecessary.”

President Ma Ying-jeou was Taiwanese president from 2008 to 20016. He and his Kuomintang party lean towards a rapprochement with Beijing. Ma is currently on a 12-day unofficial visit to Mainland China. The first such visit by a past or present president of Taiwan. Like Tsai, he hedges his bets on relations with Beijing. In his first inaugural address he pledged: “No reunification, no independence, and no war.” He might have added: no commitments in any direction.

It was during Ma’s administration that shipping and other transport links with the mainland were re-established as well as a family reunification plan and a number of commercial ties. Some of those ties have been suspended by the Chinese Communist Party during Tsai’s administration.

Elections are scheduled in Taiwan in January and relations with the mainland are likely to dominate debates.

Tagged and | 2 Comments

Christmas Tree Bills – and the backlog in the Lords

The concept of a Christmas Tree Bill was new to me. Don Foster has been talking to PoliticsHome about them.

There are very many bills like Christmas Tree Bills, where it’s perfectly possible to move amendments that dangle further baubles on to the Christmas tree.

A very good example of that is the Levelling Up Bill, which really opens up the possibilities for almost anything to be moved as an amendment.

He has been commenting on the backlog in the House of Lords caused by hugely complex legislation making its way through the system.  In particular the Levelling Up And Regeneration Bill has attracted over 500 amendments, earning it this description as a Christmas Tree Bill. The Report stage is now not expected until the summer.

Don said it can be …

…extraordinarily difficult for a government and for the business managers of that government to timetable everything so it works.

You have one further complication which is ‘events dear boy, events’ where things emerge – for example we’ve had the issue around the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Having carefully planned well in advance what might be a timetable that works, events come along and things get totally screwed up.

Tagged | 1 Comment

Why health is the theme for the Lib Dem local election launch

The Liberal Democrats have been analysing the latest data from the NHS. It shows that there are 547 fewer GP practices in England compared with 2019 – during a period when patient numbers have been rising. Now some of those could be due to mergers of practices, but not all, because we also know that GP numbers have fallen as well.

In fact, there are now 850 fewer NHS GPs than four years ago. Remember that in the last election (in 2019) the Tories promised to recruit 6000 more GPs.

Rural communities suffer most from losing their medical centres. There are 206 villages where patients have a journey of more than 5 miles to see a doctor – this figures is up on previous years as well.

We all know that the NHS is in crisis – appalling ambulance waiting times, long waits for transfer from A&E to hospital beds, unnecessary waits for discharge, unprecedented waiting lists for hospital appointments and for surgery.  On top of that there are huge pressures on GP practices, who are the first point of contact for anyone with a medical worry. It seems that over the last year 29% of UK adults have tried and failed to get a GP appointment.

There is clearly widespread anger and anxiety, although most people realise that none of this is the fault of the medical professionals.

Our simple policies of recruiting 8000 more GPs, and giving patients a legal right to see a GP within seven days, will go some way towards addressing the problems.

Tagged and | 14 Comments

OfSTED needs urgent reform now – and the Lib Dems should be leading calls for it

The tragic news that Primary headteacher Ruth Perry took her own life after the primary school she led was downgraded from Outstanding to Inadequate after an inspection in November 2022 has shone a spotlight on the schools inspectorate, OfSTED. It has led to calls to review how these high stakes inspections take place and into the aftermath they wreak. It took over a week for the Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman to publish a rather tin-eared statement outlining sympathy with Mrs Perry, her family and the school but making it very clear that inspections will continue unabated and unchanged. At least they responded – however Inadequately. This much – unless I’ve missed something – cannot be said for those that drive education policy in the major political parties, something I find perplexing. There is no way that the tragic death of someone should be used as a political football and this may lay at the heart of the relative silence of Gillian Keegan, Bridget Phillipson and Munira Wilson, but will it take another suicide or 2 more or 3 more before those in power stop, look and realise that putting their heads in the sand and hoping it goes away isn’t the right response?

Tagged and | 6 Comments

Why Putin’s arrest warrant matters

In May 2022 Putin issued a new decree to make it easier for Russians to adopt Ukrainian children. In addition, Russian officials announced it would extend government support to Russian families who adopt kidnapped Ukrainian children resulting in more than 16,000 being deported to Russia. The abducted children are forced to learn Russian, are denied contact with their families to “Russify” them by providing “patriotic education” and is considered an act of Genocide.

Although some children are being taken from orphanages, many have parents who were coerced into allowing their children to go and others were simply murdered. Daria Gerasimchuk, a Ukrainian government ombudswoman, told the Observer: “They kill the parents, for whatever reason, and kidnap the child. In other cases, they just grab the child directly from the family, perhaps to punish that family.” Such reports are similar to the Canadian Residential Schools and the Nazi Lebensborn program.

Tagged , and | 2 Comments

Self-identification, a Returning Officer’s Perspective

There was a constitutional amendment on the agenda for the recent York conference (item F15 on the agenda) that sought to amend the rules for ensuring gender diversity on the party’s committees (clause 2.5 of the constitution). The part of the amendment that has attracted most attention was the removal of non-binary people from the text, but the other proposed change was much more concerning from a practical point of view as a returning officer. This was the removal of the words “self-identification” as the means of determining whether a candidate is a man or a woman.

I’ve conducted internal elections within the party for more than twenty years for a variety of bodies – affiliated organisations, state parties, local parties. I’ve never conducted federal elections, but the vast majority of bodies within the party incorporate the federal rules on diversity into their own elections so I’m very familiar with how these rules are operated in practice.

On the most basic practical level, each candidate submits a nomination form, either on paper or online, and there are tick boxes on the form for each of the four diversity criteria, that is sex/gender, ethnicity, disability and LGBT+. The way that the sex/gender rules are implemented in practice is that there are three boxes, “man”, “woman” and “non-binary”. If you tick one then you are treated as being in that category for the purposes of applying the rules in clause 2.5. If you don’t tick any or you tick more than one, then, rather than invalidating your nomination, you are treated as being of a fourth category (ie of unspecified gender), where you would always be disadvantaged by the application of the rules. That is: there must be 40% women/non-binary, and 40% men/non-binary; you would have to get into the other 20% if you didn’t validly designate yourself.

Also posted in Party policy and internal matters | Tagged | 12 Comments

Humza Yousaf narrowly elected as Scotland’s First Minister

When Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf entered the room at Murrayfield for the announcement of the SNP leadership election, Kate was smiling and looking like she had not a care in the world. Humza’s face was in his boots and he looked like he had the weight o the world on his shoulders.

I thought that Kate had won, but when the result came through, and Humza was proclaimed leader, you can maybe understand why he looked so miserable.

His margin of victory was that cursed ration of 52.1% to 47.9% over Kate Forbes, and we all know from Brexit how difficult it is to manage a situation where almost half of people are against you. On first preferences, he had 48% of the vote to Kate Forbes 40% and Ash Regan’s 11.1%, but Regan’s transfers broke overwhelmingly for Forbes.

There will be some relief in Scotland’s LGBT community that Yousaf, out of the three, has won. During the campaign, Kate Forbes expressed her opposition to same sex marriage and both she and Regan made clear their opposition to  the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

The leadership campaign was at times absolutely vicious. Kate Forbes demolition of his record in office may well come back to haunt the soon to be First Minister. In the first major debate, she basically told him he was being moved from his Health portfolio if she won, and said:

“You were a transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we’ve got record high waiting times – what makes you think you can do a better job as first minister?”

The thing I found most weird, having spent my Summer three years ago, along with many others, phone canvassing in our leadership election, that the SNP didn’t allow their candidates to have membership data in order to canvass. Maybe that explains the low turnout of 70% in such a fiercely fought election for, effectively, the leader of the country.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton congratulated Humza but did not hold back about the challenge ahead of him:

I would like to congratulate Humza Yousaf on becoming the first minority ethnic leader of his party.

“Scotland is crying out for a First Minister who will put the people’s priorities first and be a leader for the whole country.

“There are huge challenges facing our country but sadly Humza Yousaf has not proven equal to those challenges in his previous roles. That’s not just my verdict but that of his colleague Kate Forbes.

“On his watch, 1 in 7 Scots are on a waiting list and his NHS recovery plan has completely failed to tackle crises in A&E, cancer care, mental health and dentistry.

“Reasonable, fair-minded people are turning away from the SNP and looking for someone who will fight their corner. This country is ready for change and Scottish Liberal Democrats will be part of what’s next.”

Also posted in News | Tagged , , and | 2 Comments

Met police found to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic – Now what?

The Baroness Casey Review into the Met Police makes for very grim reading for all Londoners. The contents outline some horrific attitudes and behaviours towards minorities, women and LGBTQ+ people across the city it polices as well as within its own ranks. Baroness Casey has simply held a mirror up to this organisation and stated very clearly this has to change.

What makes reading the report even more depressing is that these same issues within the Met were identified back in 1999 in another independent review – the MacPherson report. This report only arose from years of campaigning by the Lawrence family seeking justice for their son Stephen. Stephen Lawrence was murdered in a racist attack in Eltham in 1993. The Macpherson report concluded the investigation into Stephen’s murder was “marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership”

I grew up in Lewisham in a ‘tough neighbourhood’ not far from Eltham within miles of the racist attitudes that prevailed at the time. My local pub, the Golden Lion, was the scene of the unsolved Daniel Morgan murder in 1987. Daniel’s family still wait for a justice that may never come and can only take some comfort the  Independent Panel enquiry they campaigned for established the Met was “institutionally corrupt” and  Britain’s biggest police force engaged in “the denial of the failings in investigation, including a failure to acknowledge professional incompetence, individual’s venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures”

Also posted in Local government and London | Tagged , , and | 3 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

UK

The appearance of ex-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson before the House of Commons Privileges Committee has echoes of the fate of Charles the First and James the Second.

Each of the above cases helped to establish the supremacy of parliament over the monarchy, or the executive.

The modern-day British Prime Minister straddles both institutions. They must be a member of parliament and command the support of a majority of the House of Commons. But at the same time they are officially appointed by the monarch to represent them in parliament. They are accountable to both institutions, but as the 1689 Bill of Rights makes clear, more accountable to parliament which is “supreme.”

But if parliament is expected to do its job properly, it must be able to rely on the information that is provided by the executive branch (i.e. government ministers, including the prime minister). For that reason it is vital that ministers – especially the prime minister – do not intentionally or recklessly mislead or lie to the House of Commons or House of Lords.

To do so, completely undermines the principle of the supremacy of parliament and rocks the foundations of the British constitution. That is why Boris Johnson is in deep political hot water. It is not that he broke Covid rules. It is that he appears to have lied to parliament about it.

Charles I lost his head for challenging the supremacy of parliament and James II was forced to abdicate and fled to France. Boris Johnson is unlikely to suffer either fate. The worst that could happen to him is be suspended from parliament which is the 21st century equivalent of decapitation.

Such a move could easily split the Conservative Party. Boris has a strong personal following and Conservatives and despite the current ascendancy of the extreme right, they are divided between anti-European libertarian ideologues and one-nation tax-cutting businessmen.

France

State visits are a big deal. They require months, sometimes years, of careful protocol-driven planning. That is why the last minute cancellation of a state visit is an even bigger deal.

Next week King Charles III was scheduled to make his first ever state visit. It was to be to France to restore the Entente Cordiale to its pre-Brexit cordiality. On Friday it was announced that the visit had been postponed

For a change, the dramatic shift in protocol had nothing to do with Britain’s post-Brexit positions on Northern Ireland, fishing, immigration, Australian submarines or a thousand other potential Anglo-French flashpoints. It had everything to do with violent demonstrations sweeping across France in the wake of President Emmanuel Macron’s decreed legislation to increase the French retirement age from 62 to 64.

The result of the presidential decree has been a wave of violence and strikes across France. Rubbish is piling up in the streets of Paris. The entrance to Bordeaux Town Hall was set alight. 903 fires were started in the capital on Thursday, 400 people were arrested and police used tear gas against the demonstrators.

Tagged , , and | 15 Comments

The speech Ed Davey should have given at Spring Conference – my version

Ed Davey gave a speech at the York Spring Conference that received two standing ovations: one, as you’d expect, at the end; the other when he spoke about the “elephant in the room” – how our entire political establishment continues to ignore Brexit. However, after briefly mentioning red tape and improving relations, the speech rushed away from the topic and into the safe hands of president Putin.

It was a missed opportunity, as the standing ovation made plain. A previous article argued that far from being a liability, the issue of Europe and Brexit could be our party’s election thunderbolt.

It’s all very well to say that, but how do you navigate a topic as toxic as Brexit? What would Ed’s speech have looked like if we decided on a bolder approach?

Brave New World

It’s worth watching the speech to get a feel for where it was going – you can see it on YouTube in its entirety. Europe kicks at the 40-minute mark. But if you want to get closer to the action, start at 37-38 mins, where Ed Davey talks about a bolder approach to our economy.

Wait for the ovation to die down and then imagine for a second.

Because here is the rest of the speech Ed Davey should have given at Spring Conference.

Tagged , and | 16 Comments

Observations of an expat: Trump declines (hopefully)

Former President of the United States Donald Trump was on Tuesday expected to be arrested for one of his many alleged crimes.

He, of course, claimed that the arrest was another chapter in a long-running political witch hunt and called on his supporters to take to the streets and protest. And they did – all ten of them.

Ten is an exaggeration, but not by much. It was certainly true that there were more police officers and people demonstrating against Trump outside the Manhattan court house then there were those protesting his innocence.

The opinion polls show him leading challenger Ron DeSantis in the race for the Republican nomination. But if bodies on the street are an indication, Donald Trump’s pulling power is on the wane.

The Stormy Daniels case is only one of several legal challenges facing the former occupant of the White House. His business—the Trump Organisation—is accused of fraud. Any day now a Georgia Grand Jury is expected to indict him for solicitation of election fraud. The Justice Department is investigating his role in the January 6 Capitol Hill Riots and he is may still be charged under the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice for unlawful possession of top secret documents after he left the White House.

But the case that could do Donald Trump the most damage does not directly involve the ex-president as either defendant or plaintiff. But it cuts to the very heart of Trump’s political structure – his claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Tagged | Leave a comment

Liberation from cars – at least in cities …

I came to the Spring Conference for free and was dropped off at a bus stop outside my hotel, returning home three days later from a stop across the road. The travelling was on two routes operated by Transdev, one of the most forward looking bus companies in the country. Changing in Leeds Bus Station from one stand to another was my longest distance pulling a case, with no need to cross Leeds or York City Centres.

Since gaining my all-England concessionary bus pass a decade and a half ago (thank you Gordon Brown) and as a rail card user, I had become increasingly multi-modal in my travelling habits. Shortly after the 2022 Autumn Conference which never happened, I gave up driving completely.

As a former member of a Transport Authority and a lifelong student of public transport, I felt that I was as best placed an anyone else I knew when it came to making the best of inadequate bus services, which is possible in northern cities. I’m not sure I could say the same about trains. Of course it ought not to be like that. Other European countries do it differently. In or out of the EU, the UK has been woefully negligent in learning from our closest neighbours in terms of best practice in punctuality, frequency, cleanliness, safety, costs and convenience.

Round our way, a number of bus services get cancelled, often at short notice, “due to shortage of drivers” which means that constant tracking of vehicles takes priority over using timetables. If we are in a crisis caused by an absence of qualified staff, most passengers would probably settle pro tem for fewer journeys that were guaranteed to happen. I’d like to think that settling for this relatively unpalatable solution was one of the functions of management but this doesn’t seem to be case. The only way in which the whole mess is the fault of users is that we have failed to elect politicians willing to opt for radically new ways of paying for public transport. This would be preferable to control ultimately resting at the other end of the country, or indeed in other countries, with bosses constrained by the priorities of private sector shareholders.

Tagged | 28 Comments

Accessing Conference

I love conference.

My first Federal Conference was at Harrogate in Spring 2009 (a lovely venue that we’ve not been back to since) and the buzz I got from being around my fellow Lib Dems from around the country was great and inspired me to go to many more. In fact, it probably inspired me to be involved in the party in other ways as well. I’ve been to a number of conferences since from Bournemouth to Sheffield and each one is different and interesting in its own way. When I started work as a school teacher in 2014 though, my ability to find the time to go to Conference dropped off. With the exception of a special visit to Brighton in 2016 specifically to support my fantastic friend Hywel ap Dafydd and his motion to promote NHS funding for PrEP medication, I haven’t been to conference for quite a few years.

Fast forward to last summer and I gave up my job as a school teacher and returned to university to study a masters programme in Data Science, AI and the ethics and regulation of AI (or ‘Responsible Data Science’ for short). This has afforded me the time to be more involved with the party again. I was delighted to be elected to Federal Policy Committee last year – my first time elected to any federal role after nearly two decades as a member.

Giving up work and returning to full time studies does have one big drawback though: finances. This year has not been without it’s financial challenges for everyone, but adjusting to life without my teacher’s salary has been difficult. As much as I love conference, I really felt that I couldn’t justify the cost to go this year. That is, until I was advised to apply for the Conference Access Fund. The application process was so simple and Susie Murray at HQ was very friendly and helpful as well.

From the fund I was able to claim £45 a night towards accommodation costs, I could have claimed travel costs as well. As someone who has had mental health difficulties for years I also qualified for a claim as a disabled member in the access fund as well, which increased my accommodation claim by a further £45 per night, taking me to £90 per night for accommodation. The rates for Autumn 2023 have already been published and include an uplift to £55 for the basic accommodation cost.

Being granted an award under the access fund literally allowed me to attend conference this year for the first time since 2016. But the big question – was conference worth it after all this time?

Tagged and | 5 Comments

Let’s make deep poverty history with a Guaranteed Basic Income

Britain is one of the richest countries on Earth. And yet, millions of people live in food and fuel poverty. For the poorest families in our country, the cost of living crisis is nothing new. It has been a consistent reality for decades as they have struggled to afford the basic essentials in life.

In recent years, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society have been impacted by crisis after crisis. From the financial crisis of 2008, to the years of austerity, to the current cost of living crisis, not to mention the consequences of Brexit, the poorest and most vulnerable continue to suffer. Poverty deprives the individual of dignity, autonomy and personhood. It prevents them from developing as an individual and severely limits their life outcomes. There could be nothing more liberal than ensuring that “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty”.

Last weekend, I found myself in the unusual position of being undecided on a conference vote as the party debated its Towards A Fairer Society motion in York. The debate centred around a choice between Universal Basic Income (UBI) and what the party called a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI). Having previously written for Lib Dem Voice on the merits of a Universal Basic Income, it may come as a surprise that I was not sure which policy option to support.

For me, the choice between UBI and GBI was a battle between heart and head. UBI on the face of it is the ideal policy, it is radical and egalitarian and is based upon the notion of universal shared citizenship. Everyone would be in receipt of it, regardless of background or wealth. The universality of the policy is essential for reducing the social stigma towards the poorest who would need it most. However, fellow UBI supporters need to better respond to the criticism of why the richest should also receive it (even though their UBI would probably be entirely taxed back by the state).

Universal Basic Income is a massive policy, not just in terms of public expenditure, but in terms of its potential to transform society and the economy. In order to do UBI justice, a complex and sophisticated political argument is required. One that would require us to re-examine the nature of work, citizenship, universality, the tax system and the welfare state.

It was clear that the party would currently struggle to advance such a complicated political argument. If party activists cannot easily explain a policy in a Focus leaflet or on the doorstep, it is doomed to fail. Since the party first supported UBI in autumn 2020, the party leadership has been reluctant to advocate for it. This factor was further underlined during the debate when several MPs stood up to argue in favour of GBI and against UBI.

Tagged , and | 42 Comments

The speech Ed Davey should have given at Spring Conference

It’s been three years since we’ve met up in person, so Spring Conference was a joyous event. It was also a chance to get fired up about the future: something the party’s leadership was keen to make the most of.

And so for the closing speech, Ed Davey’s team pulled out all the stops. There were not one but two emails from top brass in the hours before, one from CEO Mike Dixon offering an “exclusive preview” of the text and another from national campaign chief Dave McCobb telling us how much a draft of the speech had inspired him. Both encouraged us to spread a live video link far and wide. It was clear this was a big push.

And it worked. Those of us in York packed the hall to hear the party leader speak and we were ready to be inspired. Ed Davey came out to rapturous applause, and we were off.

It was a carefully crafted and moving speech – especially when Ed spoke to the struggles he has faced from the loss of his father and mother when young and the challenges he continues to experience with his son. He spelt out clearly what it is to be a Liberal, and was unflinching in his criticism of the current government and their policies.

But it was another member of the party’s top team, president Mark Pack, that highlighted the speech’s most unusual aspect: it peaked in the middle.

The standing ovation was indeed remarkable. Coming after a long series of complaints about the Tories, Ed Davey paused and seized on an issue most dear to Liberals’ hearts…

There’s another historic, longstanding difference between the Liberal Democrat economic vision – and those of others. More relevant today than ever. I call it the elephant in the room of British politics. An elephant we always point to, even though other parties daren’t even whisper its name.

And then the kicker, that ended with Ed in full power stance:

So let me shout it, yet again: if you want to boost our economy, you have to repair our broken relationship with Europe.

Boom

The room uprooted itself in approval. Rafters swayed and seats shook as the audience leapt to its feet and roared. Our leader was finally calling out the disaster that has been Brexit. After years of excuses and gaslighting from the political establishment and the press, there was no way out of it.

We as Lib Dems had warned and bellowed and fought and been proven right. Only we had a clean record on Europe and finally we were going to acknowledge that reality and, better, use it to blow away shameless political rivals.

The decision to called out this “elephant in the room” was rewarded with a minute-long standing ovation given with such conviction that even the man that delivered it was surprised. And as it began to die down, we waited with bated breath to hear how the party’s best and smartest had figured out how to navigate the difficult realities of Brexit with what we know to be true. We waited to be given our marching orders, receive our rallying cry…

…And then it became clear that the sentence that had forced us to our feet was not a headline but just part of a paragraph.

Tagged , and | 17 Comments

Iraq – 20 years on. A personal story.

In early 2003 I was in Sierra Leone working on post-war reforms and rebel disarmament. I was running past the run-down Russian UN helicopters on Lumley beach when I received the call. 

It was already known that British Forces had attempted to find a way to appoint the first regional government; in Basra, one of the four UK-controlled Iraqi governorates. By agreement with the US, the UK had been tasked with finding a model. They were looking for someone ‘reckless’ with relevant experience. Folks knew I was against the war, but the final make-or-break question from the official was ‘you’re not a bloomin’ tree hugger are you?’.

Following bio-weapons training, my first interaction was my car being attacked by stone-throwing teenagers after I crossed the border from Kuwait. There was a lot of audible gunfire, and on the main roads there were still uncollected bodies littering the way.

Saddam’s gaudy riverside palace had been looted and all the marble floors were deep in broken glass. There was no power at first. It was 51 degrees, down to 42 by 3am. Water was scarce. Catching a breeze on the roof at nighttimes was noisy, with explosive flashes and gunfire sweeping across the city below.

Tagged and | 4 Comments

Disagree well

I have always felt very comfortable to be a member of a party that is able to disagree well. Sometimes Liberal Democrats have been so bloody reasonable we have taken the side of our opponents in a debate!

However, I have been increasingly concerned that this almost unique characteristic has at times been at risk of being lost in the recent debate on gender identity and the recent call for members who disagree to leave the party has compelled me to speak out.

I voted for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in the Scottish Parliament. Several party members opposed the bill on perfectly understandable grounds. Many have been members for decades and are dedicated to the party and its beliefs. Now they are being told they are no longer welcome because they just can’t agree with the official position of the party.

Some seem to believe that to question the implications of self-identification, even in a nuanced way, is to question the very rights of trans people.  However, I believe it is possible to disagree but still defend the rights of trans people. I know these members; they are generous and kind liberals, and I would never describe them as transphobes.

Tagged | 94 Comments

IPCC on Climate Change: Act now or it’s too late

Embed from Getty Images

The Synthesis report of Sixth Assessment of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published yesterday.

This is a open thread for you to give your views on this report, which you can read in full here.

Also posted in News | Tagged and | 18 Comments

Welcome to my day: 20 March 2023 – how was it for you?

Train journeys back from Conference tend to offer a chance to reflect on the events of the past few days, especially for someone who likes to travel in a bubble of isolation (nothing personal, fellow Liberal Democrats, but sometimes I just like to be alone). And this Conference has been no different.

Was their journey really necessary?

Sadly, the culture wars that have poisoned our national body politic have come to the Liberal Democrats and, unlike our more authoritarian opposite numbers, we’re curiously more vulnerable in some ways. Many of us find confrontation enervating rather than enjoyable, and we have a tendency to wish away conflict rather than address it head-on. And I do get that – we’re (mostly) nice people who want to be welcoming. And that means that not so lovely people can get quite far into the Party’s core before anyone necessarily notices.

However, at some point, unless you draw lines in the sand in terms of behaviour and values, you find that what you had is gone forever, and that the liberal party you thought you were part of is no more. And it does happen, for example in Hungary, where it is now hard to believe we were once a sister party to FIDESZ, the conservative nationalist party which forms the most unpleasant administration in the European Union.

It is at times like this, therefore, that those who believe in the liberal values of tolerance and mutual respect have to step up as Conference did on Saturday.

Tagged | 4 Comments

It’s time for gender critical people to leave

This spring conference season Lib Dems filed into the auditorium to hear a motion that would amend this piece of the constitution, to remove all references to self-ID and non-binary people:

Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall self-identify as men or non-binary people, and self-identify as women or non-binary people respectively.

And this spring conference, a weary bunch of Liberals – tired of the constant, fundamental attacks on our values from a determined and illiberal minority – moved to ignore it entirely, a vote that passed with such a staggering majority that you could weigh the result.

The message was clear: “go away”. And now it’s time for those critical of gender identity – in the footsteps of those critical of sexual identity – to leave the Liberal Democrats.

The writing is on the door – there is no space for bigotry in this party. And while our byzantine machinery has allowed this motion to reach the conference floor, no representative auditorium will pass it.

Tagged and | 61 Comments

Fantastic Fairer Society

It is fantastic that Conference passed the Fairer Society policy paper yesterday. As a member of the working group, I spent a significant amount of time working across a number of aspects of the paper, including providing a lot of the drafting for the workers rights section, alongside fantastic contributions from Laura Gordon and others.

A brief aside, while I am very disappointed that UBI was not picked from the options, it was absolutely fantastic to see Members of Parliament rally behind a commitment to end deep poverty within 10 years. It will make a real difference to a great many …

Tagged and | 17 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

US presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis this week said Ukraine is a territorial dispute. He also said that Ukraine is not one of America’s vital national interests. This puts him seriously at odds with President Joe Biden, America’s NATO allies and about 50 other countries who firmly believe that the war in Ukraine is a battle between democracy and autocracy, good and evil.

DeSantis was not always of this opinion. In 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimea, the Florida governor was in the forefront of those calling for Ukraine to be armed. The reason for the shift appears to be his political ambitions.

First hurdle in the race to the White House is securing the Republican Party nomination and at the moment  the opinion polls show him trailing his main opponent – Donald Trump, who is well known for his pro-Russian, anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine politics.

DeSantis clearly reckons that the only way to beat Trump is to out-Trump the former president. The problem he will face – once in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave – is moving from an anti to pro-Ukraine policy. De Santis’s rhetoric is a strategic gift to Vladimir Putin. He and his Kremlin coterie are banking heavily on a Republican victory in 2024. This means they only have to hold on for another 18 months or so before American disenchantment becomes official foreign policy.

France

The French, it is said, work to live. Americans, Brits, Japanese, Germans … live to work. This basic difference in outlook goes a long way to explaining why millions of Frenchmen and women are protesting and striking against President Emmanuel Macron’s plans to raise the start of the state pension from 62 to 64 years. It will deprive them of two years “living time” or, as the neighbouring Italians would say: “La Dolce Vita.”

The problem with this idyllic view of life is that it clashes with hard-nosed demographics. France’s population is growing older and less productive. The French Treasury can’t afford to arm Ukraine, switch to a green economy and pay for the pandemic as well as continue to pay for one of the world’s most generous pension schemes. Especially as the French population is clinging to life much longer than the insurance actuaries estimated when today’s retirees entered the workforce.

In fact, when estimating premiums and pay-outs, insurance companies calculate that their customers will live for five years after they start taking their pension. The current average life expectancy of a Frenchman is 82. The maths no longer work.

The demographic problems faced by France, are common throughout the developed world. Which is why governments are pushing up state retirement ages. But this has not stopped the French from arguing that their national motto of “Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité” makes them a special case.

As a result, for the last few weeks they have been out in their hundreds of thousands to protest against Macron’s plans. They were heard. More importantly, the Deputies to the National Assembly listened. This week Macron failed to garner the necessary Assembly votes to push through his pension plans. So he used Article 49:3 of the constitution which permits the government to enact legislation without parliamentary approval, but allows the opposition to table a quick vote of no confidence.

The reaction was immediate and brutal. Opposition Deputies banged their desks, waved flags and placards and sang the Marsellaise. They also tabled the aforementioned vote of no confidence in the government. Outside the National Assembly riots broke out across the country. More than 150 people were arrested by Friday morning.

If the no confidence vote is passed then the government of Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne will fall and parliamentary elections will be held. Macron’s Renaissance party is already in a minority in the National Assembly. After an election with the pension age as the only issue, his representation will almost certainly fall further. This will make it more difficult for him to govern and be grist for the mill of his far-right opponent Jean-Marine LePen.

Tagged , , and | 7 Comments

Observations of an expat: Shifting playing field

The diplomatic playing field has shifted this week. The cause is China’s successful brokering of the resumption of diplomatic relations between Middle East arch-enemies and regional super powers Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the fact that new embassies will appear in Riyadh and Tehran does not mean that all will now be sweetness and light. Deep-seated differences remain between the founts of Sunni Islam and the world’s Shi-ites. But there is no doubt that jaw jaw is better than the undeclared war that has existed in the Gulf region for decades.

The biggest regional winner is Saudi Arabia. Iran has been sniping away at the kingdom’s oil and communications infrastructure and backing Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The eight-year Yemeni civil war has cost an estimated 300,000 lives; badly tarnished Saudi Arabia’s international reputation and drained the treasury. If diplomatic communications can shift the Iranian position on Yemen then it will enable Crown Prince to focus more on his economic plans as well as improving his platform on the world stage.

A definite loser in the current shift is Israel. Jerusalem’s implacable enemy is Iran. The Iranians support Hezbollah and Hamas and are on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon which they say would be an existential threat to their existence.  Maintaining tensions between Arabs and Persians was a key element in Jerusalem’s divide and conquer diplomacy in the Persian Gulf.

The biggest loser, however, is the US. The biggest winner is China.  From 1945 to 1990 there were two super powers who competed for dominance on the world stage—America and the Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War the United States has been the go-to nation for any government seeking support in a diplomatic struggle.

Tagged , and | 2 Comments

Let’s take a stand at conference against the cruel Braverman Bill

The Conservatives are intent on dragging our country off a cliff with their Small Boats Bill. As Liberal Democrats, we must do everything in our power to stop it – starting at Conference this weekend.

Suella Braverman’s Bill says that anyone who enters the UK via a small boat will be immediately detained and deported to another country as soon as possible. Just like their botched Rwanda plan, this is immoral, unworkable and incredibly expensive for the taxpayer.

We all want to tackle people smuggling and prevent people from making dangerous attempts to cross the Channel, but this bill will do nothing of the sort. The Conservatives are still refusing to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK. Instead, they are demonising vulnerable people and giving impunity to the real criminals – human traffickers.

At the same time, they are stripping back hard-won protections for the most vulnerable. The ban on child detention was a Liberal Democrat policy that we proudly put into law in 2014 – now under threat from this government. Important legal limits on how long pregnant women can be detained are also at risk.

The consequences go even deeper. By using the bill to exclude certain groups of people from accessing their rights – whether it is the protections under the Modern Slavery Act, the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights – the Conservatives are setting a dangerous precedent.

They are acting like they can pick and choose what rights our government must protect, while also picking and choosing who can stand up for their rights if they are harmed. Small wonder, then, that backbench Conservative MPs are rumoured to be plotting to use this legislation to push for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. Their dangerous rhetoric has only been emboldened by the Home Secretary.

Tagged , and | 9 Comments

Caron’s guide to the craziness of Conference – York 2023 version

By the time you read this, I will, fingers crossed and LNER permitting, be cosied up in my hotel in York. After 3 and a half years, I am ridiculously excited to see my friends. I may talk to a lot of them every day thanks to the wonders of social media, but it’s not the same thing as being in the room with them.

This Conference is going to be very different for me. Long Covid means that the usual whirlwind from breakfast fringes to late night drinking is just not possible for me this time. I’m treating it as more of a holiday with a bit of Conference thrown in. I will need to rest a lot and pace myself very carefully and curb my instincts to just push through because I am having fun because I will definitely pay for it later.

Given the the havoc that this virus has wreaked within my body, I am in no rush to come into contact with it again or to expose my family to it. I am still wearing masks in supermarkets and crowded spaces to try and minimise my exposure. When I went to Scottish Conference, I wore a mask in the hall, and when I was sitting anywhere else for a long time and not eating or drinking. But, entirely inconsistently, I found it impossible to resist in the moment when friends offered a hug. That balance between living life the way you want to and protecting yourself is tricky and everyone needs to make their own decisions about what is ok for them.

I have revamped my Guide to the Craziness of Conference for this year. Enjoy. And if you have any questions, ask away in the comments.

Federal Conference is probably the best fun that you will ever have in your life. You will thoroughly enjoy every exhausting moment. If you’re new, it can be a bit overwhelming until you get used to the sensory overload. I had a long break from going to them and when I returned, in 2011, I spent the first day wandering round in a state of wide-eyed amazement,  like a child in a toy shop. Spring Conference is smaller than Autumn, but a look at the agenda tells me that there are at least two things going on that I want to go to at all times.

So, with that in mind, I thought I’d throw together a fairly random list of tips and hints for getting the best out of the annual cornucopia of Liberal Democracy. If you have any other Conference survival tips, let me know.

1. Plan your days

The Conference day has a huge variety of things to do. As well as the debates in the hall,  there’s a comprehensive training programme.  There are spokespeople Q & As. There are competing fringe choices to be made.  You can guarantee that you will never be bored and that several things you want to see will be on at the same time.

Be aware as well that you can eat quite well for free by choosing the right fringe meetings – look for the refreshments symbol in the directory.

Believe me, it’s much easier if you sort out your diary in advance. The best laid plans will always be subject to a better offer or meeting someone you haven’t seen for years randomly in a corridor, but it’s best to at least try to get some order into the proceedings. The Conference App is a real help for this. You can download it from whichever App store you use on your phone (search for Lib Dem Conf). It allows you to add events to your schedule and has all the papers loaded on to it.

2 Comments

Liberalism: the delicate balances between democracy and market capitalism, between freedom and solidarity

When I first joined the Liberal Party many decades ago, it thought of itself as the party of ideas.  It wasn’t much good at campaigning, but groups of Young Liberals and old liberals, in universities and London clubs, held study sessions and published papers and books; and the Liberal Summer School devoted several days to serious discussions of policies and principles.  We took pride in the occasions when other parties pinched our ideas: we saw ourselves as the intellectual drivers of British politics.

Since then we have learn how to campaign, above all at the local level.  But that’s come at the cost of thinking and debating, of picking up new ideas and translating them into policies.  There are many reasons for this.  Politics in Westminster has become far more hectic, preventing our MPs (and peers) from spending the time with outside experts and intellectuals that their predecessors in the 1960s and 1970s enjoyed. Our policy-making process is slow and under-staffed, churning out policy papers over 9-12 months for conference approval.  Since Paul Marshall went over to the dark side of Brexit politics we have lacked a friendly think tank to push out proposals before they grind through our official processes – though there are some bodies to which we can and should turn for advice.  The Social Liberal Forum and other groups do their best, but cannot – without staff and funds – compete with the well-funded think tanks of the right.

With an election campaign in 18 months or less, now is hardly the time to sit back and reflect at length on alternative futures for British politics.  But we will fade away as a party unless we develop distinctive narratives about how to promote liberal values in our society, economy, environment and international policy.  We should, for example, be picking up the themes being developed by policy-related economists, criticising the dominance of free-market assumptions and reintroducing political economy and the moral concerns that Adam Smith addressed in his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments but downplayed in The Wealth of Nations. 

8 Comments

Towards a fairer society: Universal Basic Income vs Guaranteed Basic Income

On Saturday conference will discuss an important paper about tackling the many sources of unfairness in our society.  I wrote about this for Liberal Democrat Voice in September when we were expecting to discuss them, and, given the importance of the issues, thought it worth republishing the substance of that article now.

The paper on fairness includes essential short term measures to deal with the cost of living crisis but its main focus is more strategic – covering lifelong employment support, more power to local communities and better workforce protections.

The conference motion also offers a choice – and conference will vote between two ambitious long term proposals to end poverty – a Universal Basic Income (UBI), and a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI).

(There is also a third option which reserves judgement until both of these approaches have been fully tested over a number of years.)

The UBI proposal scraps income tax and national insurance personal allowances for everyone of working age, so that we all pay tax and national insurance on the first pound that we receive. That costs anyone currently paying tax £78 a week. The proposal also introduces a new payment to all working age adults of £78 (the “Universal Basic Income”) – so if you were previously paying tax you end up in the same place as before, but if you aren’t earning enough to pay tax, you are better off.  The current benefits system is retained but the UBI is treated as income under it – so that benefits are reduced; someone on Universal Credit would typically see a net benefit of £35 a week.  This way of delivering UBI is the output of two years of development by working groups – on which I served – and is very similar to proposals by some of the leading think tanks advocating UBI.

The GBI proposal is more directly targeted on ensuring everyone has a decent minimum standard of living. It establishes a commitment over time to get all households to a certain income level, and uses a reformed version of the existing benefits system to steadily increase the amount of this ‘guaranteed base’. An independent commission is set up to hold the government to account in terms of setting the right level over time – in much the same way as has been successfully done with the minimum wage.

Tagged , , , and | 33 Comments

The Lord Mayor, the packets of dates and the lie

An extraordinary case was concluded  in the election court in Birmingham last month    in which a former Labour  Lord Mayor of Birmingham  was given leave by the Election Court to withdraw an election petition  seeking to overturn his loss at the May 2022 elections to two Lib Dem Councillors.

The background is that in the election Labour’s Muhammed Afzal and a colleague were  defeated by Lib Dem Cllrs – Ayoub Khan and Mumtaz Hussain  – the  relevant bit of the result was:

Ayoub Khan (Liberal Democrat) 3012 votes

Mumtaz Hussain (Liberal Democrat) 2542 votes

Muhammad Afzal (Labour) 2463 votes

Nagina Kauser (Labour) 2223 votes

During the election the Lib Dem candidates had said that Mr Afzal   had been ‘treating’  voters –  by giving out packets of dates with a Labour sticker on while canvassing. Cllr Khan had said on his Facebook page

Such is Labour’s desperation in the Aston Ward…that the current sitting councillor has decided to bribe the people of Aston for votes by giving them a special treat. They ought to know better…this is not Pakistan where you can buy votes.

The election petition said that this claim was false  and intended to defame Mr Afzal’s personal character and that therefore  the result of the election should be overturned.

This was clearly a very serious allegation: apart from losing their hard won council seats, losing the petition would make the 2 Lib Dem councillors responsible for heavy costs putting their homes at risk, possible criminal charges and  and as Cllr Khan is a barrister it  may have had  very serious consequences for his career.

4 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Alex Macfie
    @Jason Connor: Books and newspapers (and the concept of mass literacy even) were once the subject of the same sort of moral panic that now engulfs social media....
  • Jason Connor
    I agree with Jana, well said by the way, and support the ban 100% and the government on this issue. It can cause a great deal of damage, harm and trauma to youn...
  • Jason Connor
    The coalition years did much of the damage in labour facing seats. The Green Party have now moved into that space. Many social liberal policies were jettisoned ...
  • Jason Connor
    I am against ending the triple lock and believe it's non negotiable. Many pensioners struggle with the cost of living and rising energy costs despite the recent...
  • David Le Grice
    Nigel Jones I think the issue is more that even lib dem seats aren't immune to voters behaving like we're in a two party system, Labour took Inverness and Roch...