Category Archives: Op-eds

Tom Arms’ World Review

United States

Mid-term election fever is starting to grip America. And it comes at a time when American’s trust in their electoral system – the cornerstone of any democratic state – is plummeting.

It is still six months before Americans troop to the polls to elect a third of their senators and all the members of the House of Representatives. But the candidates are busy at the hustings. This is mainly because American elections are a two-stage affair. Stage one the parties vote to decide who will be their candidate and in stage two the winners of the “primaries” compete for the main prize.

But will the elections be free and fair? Only 20 percent of Republicans think they will be, 25 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Independents.

For this lack of trust, we can thank the current resident of the White House. His never-ending allegation that the 2020 presidential elections were stolen and claims that the current mid-term elections are likely to suffer the same fate have encouraged his MAGA base—and others to deny the veracity of any election result.

Actually, polls show that distrust in Americans started at the turn of the century with the Gore v. Bush presidential election. It recovered under Obama but then took a major beating when Trump came along. Basically, his assertion is that it is inconceivable that people would vote against him. Therefore, it is impossible for Donald Trump – or anyone he supports – to lose an election.

Democrats claim that to ensure that he wins, Trump will go to any length, including creating conditions that allow him to declare martial law to prevent elections being held. They also fear that he could send armed ICE agents to key voting districts to intimidate African American and Latino voters from turning up to vote or simply declare some votes invalid.

All of those measures would be illegal and would be quickly challenged and reversed in the courts. But then the courts themselves could be used by both parties to challenge results with which they disagree. This could result in delaying the seating of elected representatives and bring the electoral process into further disrepute.

Republicans fear that the Democrats will flood the voting booths with illegal immigrants and claim this has been a feature of past elections. It is true that some illegal immigrants have voted and that they voted Democrat. But the issue is a major red herring. In 2024, Michigan recorded the largest number of attempted votes by illegal immigrants – 15 out of 5.7 million votes cast. Other states recorded either single digits or no cases at all.

The House of Representatives Committee on House Administration is tasked with the job of adjudicating any disputed elections to the US House of Representatives. To try and head off any Trumpian-backed disputes, committee member Joe Morelle has produced a list of 150 ways that Trump may try to unfairly influence or block elections.

These have all been discussed with state election officials who are responsible for organising and monitoring elections (the federal government is expressly forbidden from involvement in elections). Whether that is enough remains to be seen. Certainly, the stakes are high in November. A Republican victory would mean two more years of Trump unfettered. A Democratic landslide—which is widely predicted– could lead to a third impeachment or, at the very least, a Trump White House encumbered by endless congressional investigations.

Iran

Chaos, chaos everywhere, with no end to the Iran War in sight.

Both Tehran and Washington are hotbeds of infighting and backstabbing without the sign of any clear leadership which is a prerequisite to end the war.

In the Pentagon this week, Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth fired John Phelan, who as Secretary of the Navy was responsible for organising the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports.

No reason was given for the “immediate” sacking of Phelan, but it has been widely reported, that Hegseth was annoyed with Phelan going behind his back to speak directly with the president.

Since the fighting began, Hegseth has also fired Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, and Jacqueline Smith, editor of the editorially independent Pentagon newspaper “Stars and Stripes.” Since taking office, the former TV presenter has sacked more than a dozen senior generals and admirals.

As for Trump himself, his strategy appears to consist of a series of rolling ultimatums as he goes from calling on the Iranian people to rise up; to bombing Iran into the “stone age;” to joint management of the Strait of Hormuz to naval blockade….

Tagged , and | 6 Comments

The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us

I’ll be honest. When I first started researching hypersonic missiles and the Falkland Islands, it felt like a subject more suited to a defence think-tank than a Lib Dem blog. But the events of the past 48 hours have changed my mind and I think they should change yours too.

Argentine President Javier Milei has declared that he is doing “everything humanly possible” to return the Falklands to Argentine hands. That alone would be manageable. What is far more alarming is the backdrop: a leaked Pentagon memo has proposed withdrawing American diplomatic support for British sovereignty over the islands as punishment, apparently, for Britain’s refusal to participate in US strikes against Iran. In a single week, the two pillars Britain has traditionally leaned on: the Special Relationship and Argentine diplomatic restraint have both wobbled badly.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in the rule of law, self-determination, and the rights of people to choose their own future. In 2013, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain British. That democratic mandate is beyond question. Our obligation to defend those 3,200 people is not optional, it is constitutional and moral. But right now, I am not convinced we have the tools to do it quickly enough.

Here is the uncomfortable truth about our current Falklands garrison. RAF Mount Pleasant hosts between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel, just four Typhoon fighters, Sky Sabre air defence batteries, and a single patrol vessel. It is a holding force brave and professional, but not one designed to resist a determined modern assault alone. In 1982, Argentina invaded partly because a token garrison and the rumoured withdrawal of HMS Endurance convinced Buenos Aires that Britain wouldn’t or couldn’t respond. We must never allow that miscalculation again.

The problem is geography and time. A carrier strike group sailing from Portsmouth takes approximately 15 days to reach the South Atlantic, travelling around 500 miles a day. In those 15 days, our small garrison is essentially on its own. That is the window any adversary would exploit.

Tagged , , and | 26 Comments

How to support Tom Gordon, Helen Morgan and Wendy Chamberlain in the London Marathon

Three of our MPs will be on the carb loading today as they prepare to take part in the London Marathon tomorrow.

 

Tom Gordon, Helen Morgan and Wendy Chamberlain are tackling the 26 mile, 385 yard course starting in Blackheath and finishing on the Mall.

Here at LDV Towers we have our app set up to track them, despite our slight reservations about technology that allows you to do this. Helen’s number is 62224, Tom’s is 59608 and Wendy’s is 72506.

It would be incredibly …

1 Comment

The Mandelson Debacle – some implications

How did His Majesty’s Government get itself in such an integrity-destroying tangle over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador to the USA? The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, 10 Downing Street, Cabinet Office, Security Services and the senior Civil Service have all faced serious potential reputational damage. What’s at the root of this?

Flashback to the late 1970s and early 1980s. To an extent the early 1970s was the heyday of Soviet Socialism. There was much admiration of the Soviet system even among the British middle classes, albeit more in theory than in practice. At my university there were several active political groups; the Revolutionary Workers Party, the Revolutionary Workers and Trotskyists, the Spartacist League, and the Communists, with the Labour group dominated by Militant. There was a small Tory contingent (mostly engineering students) and three Liberals.

The Labour leadership, including PM Callaghan, struggled with limited success to keep the party mainstream and less ‘ideologically left’. Thatcher countered successfully with a quasi-ideological ‘free market/small government’ approach in 1979, appealing to working class ‘cloth cap-italists’. Notwithstanding, the leftward drift of Labour continued and the leftist Michael Foot became leader, badly losing the 1983 election. Neil Kinnock replaced him and, blaming the far left for the defeat, took on the radicals. The infighting crippled the party and they lost the 1987 and 1992 elections (with much help from the right wing anti-Labour media).

Two years after Thatcher was elected, the Labour Party divided between those who wanted to stay and attempt to seek power without the left, and those that saw Labour as unreformable. The latter formed the SDP (later merging with the Liberals) and the former seeing future Labour success in recognising the power of big business and media moguls

Peter Mandelson was the exemplifier of the ‘recognise where power lies’ approach. He had seemingly agreed to join the SDP (he handled my national publicity when I was elected as a Liberal Councillor in Lambeth) but in the end decided to stay with Labour and implement the ‘power-realism’ approach. On the night of my election, at a party in Albert Square, out came his now famous Black Book and he almost ‘instructed’ editors and journalists to write up the story ‘along the lines suggested’. Mandelson was very effective indeed. He appeared to know every journalist, editor, and media owner in the UK (and their foibles), and could apparently make or break careers.

This approach formed part of the idea that if Labour didn’t get cosy with the media bosses, and big business and finance behind them, they would never enjoy power again.

Not all Labour moderates agreed, but Mandelson and colleagues had a logical ace up their sleeve. If Labour were out of power permanently, they couldn’t do anything for the poor or “working people”. Being close the big business meant that they could at least do something, and something is better than nothing.

Tagged and | 9 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Energy Security

Energy Security. The Ukraine War made it a hot topic for a Europe dependent on Russian oil and gas. The Iran War – alongside the climate change debate –  has revived the issue for the rest of the world.

The world’s main fossil fuel production centres are unstable. As a result, demand is growing to replace oil and gas with renewable energy. Furthermore, the renewable energy should be produced in areas which the consuming countries control. Many countries are already doing just that. Some better than others.

Surprisingly, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” America does well when it comes to renewable sources of …

Tagged | 3 Comments

In 2028, the Democrats must not repeat their ‘Tim problem’

Despite it being more than two years away, there is a great deal of interest in the 2028 US presidential election. As such, there is fierce speculation about who the Democrats’ candidate will be. While it is a fool’s errand to definitively say who that will be – given the candidacies of past ‘shoo-ins’ such as Edmund Muskie or Gary Hart – it may be worth considering who their running mate could or should be.

The role of Vice President is not insignificant. Fifteen out of forty-five Presidents previously served as VP, with eight directly succeeding following deaths in office and one following resignation. As elected representatives, they cannot be fired or dismissed like appointed Cabinet secretaries. And as President of the Senate, they can cast deciding votes to resolve ties over budgetary bills.

During elections, running mates are meant to serve as campaign assets, balancing out a ticket geographically, ideologically and personally to gain wider appeal. As this position is not determined through primaries, it is up to successful nominees under advisement to consider and select the best possible running mate.

Democratic anxieties about 2028 stem from recent memories of 2016 and 2024. In 2016, US Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine served as Hilary Clinton’s running mate, and in 2024 Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz served as Kamala Harris’s. The losses of these tickets to Donald Trump – while baffling – may be attributable to several factors, the choice of running mate should not be dismissed.

Geographically, neither Tim gave their respective tickets an advantage as they both came from reliably Democratic states on the peripheries of key US regions they were meant to represent (the South and the Rust Belt). As the Electoral College means that elections hinge on outcomes in a handful of swing states, there was no benefit having both halves of the ticket come from safe states.

Demographically, both Tims were meant to be ‘inoffensive’, balancing out tickets headed by women, seeking the highest office in a country where many voters are sceptical about the idea of a female President. While there was speculation that Clinton could nominate Elizabeth Warren, Harris voiced in her memoir 107 Days that her preferred choice of Pete Buttigieg was too risky, the combination of a black woman and a gay man potentially alienating voters. This has led to the belief that the next Democratic nominee needs to be a straight, white man.

Tagged | 1 Comment

With one bound….? Starmer’s Houdini act

What just happened at Westminster? Does anyone else think Keir Starmer played MPs and the media like a violin this week?

On Monday, I thought at least one MP would ask the simple and obvious question. “Why did the PM appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington nine days after receiving a briefing that informed him that: ‘Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail in 2009.’”

Surely that explosive sentence should have been enough, if not to block the appointment, at least to postpone it pending investigation.

The sentence, from a report by JP Morgan, speaks volumes. It indicates that Mandelson not only knew Epstein, but knew him well enough to stay in his house.  It shows that Mandelson stayed there when the owner was in prison for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18 – and when he was the UK Business Secretary. That suggests a close and unethical relationship. It also suggests Mandelson remained willing to take huge risks, not learning from his two previous dismissals from Cabinet.

The briefing, titled Advice to the Prime Minister, is dated 11 December 2024 and is available among the documents released by the government.

It repeated JP Morgan’s comment that Epstein had a “particularly close relationship” with Mandelson. And it contained a copy of an email from Mandelson to Tony Blair’s office in 2002 where he calls Epstein his friend and says he is “young and vibrant” … and “safe”.

Red flags waving. Alarm bells ringing. Massive issue. All ignored.

So how did Starmer dodge that smoking gun this week? First, he brushed over it. Second he found a smokescreen.

In his statement, he covered the briefing thus: “A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December.”

Hang on … So Mandelson answered questions the day before Starmer received the brief?  So what did he say?  The briefing is silent.

Tagged and | 9 Comments

Why A&E must stay free. But funding must change.

Few institutions define modern Britain as strongly as the National Health Service. Created in 1948 under the leadership of Aneurin Bevan, the NHS was founded on a simple but powerful promise: Healthcare would be free at the point of use, based on need rather than ability to pay. For generations this principle has been a source of national pride. Yet today the NHS faces unprecedented pressure, and unless we are prepared to rethink how it is funded, that founding promise itself may become impossible to sustain.

Demand on the system has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Britain has an ageing population, chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are increasing, and advances in medical technology, while lifesaving, are also expensive. Accident and Emergency departments, in particular, have become the frontline of these pressures. Long waiting times, overcrowding and staff burnout are symptoms of a system that is trying to do more than its current funding model can realistically support.

The debate about the NHS often becomes polarised. On one side are those who fear any change represents the creeping privatisation of healthcare. On the other are voices calling for a more market-driven model, similar to that of the United States. Both positions miss an important point. Reforming the system does not have to mean abandoning the core values of the NHS. Instead, it can mean modernising how the system is funded while protecting the principle that no one should be denied care when they need it most.

One possible solution is to preserve free access to emergency services while introducing a shared funding approach after initial assessment. Under such a model, anyone could still walk into an A&E department and receive immediate care without charge or paperwork. Treatment would begin exactly as it does now, guided only by medical urgency.

Once the patient has been stabilised and assessed, however, the cost of treatment could be shared between public funding and private insurance. A simple example might involve a 50/50 split: half funded by the state and half covered by an insurance provider. No one would be turned away or left with an unaffordable bill.

Tagged and | 31 Comments

South Cambridgeshire proved it works. It should be Lib Dem policy

In July 2025, South Cambridgeshire District Council did something no other UK council had done. It made the four-day week permanent. Not as a trial, not as a temporary arrangement, but as the way the council works. Its staff complete 100% of their work in 80% of the time, for 100% of the pay. The government told them to stop. They didn’t. The results came in: £371,500 in annual savings, a 120% rise in job applications, a 40% fall in staff turnover. Services maintained. Budget improved. Staff retained.

South Cambridgeshire is a Lib Dem council. This is our proof of concept. And we have not built on it.

That is the question this piece wants to ask, directly and without much diplomatic padding: why not?

Ed Davey said publicly he was proud of what South Cambridgeshire had done. Bridget Smith, the council leader, spoke at the 2024 autumn conference about having “sown the seeds” for a serious party debate. Eighteen months on, it is still not party policy. The seeds appear to still be in the packet.

The political landscape has shifted in the meantime. Labour committed to a 32-hour week in its 2019 manifesto and then buried the policy under Starmer, a senior adviser telling journalists flatly it was “a decision for individual businesses.” The Employment Rights Act does not touch working hours. Twenty-five councils have debated following South Cambridgeshire’s lead. Iceland, Portugal, and a 61-organisation UK trial have all produced evidence pointing in the same direction. The 4 Day Week Foundation is recruiting for two fresh pilots in 2026. The momentum is building, and the main Westminster parties are standing well back from it. That is an open goal. And it has our name on it.

The case for the four-day week is usually made in the language of productivity and well-being, and that case is strong and well-documented. But the more interesting argument, and the more distinctively liberal one, is about freedom. Specifically, about who gets to decide how their hours are spent.

The current working week was not designed for most people’s lives. It was built around a particular kind of worker: male, without primary caring responsibilities, in reasonable health, with someone else managing the domestic infrastructure. That design has never been seriously revised. Around five to six million people in Britain provide unpaid care, the majority of them women, and they are paying a daily time penalty the system imposes without acknowledging it. The carer who has quietly given up on promotion because she cannot afford the extra hours. The disabled worker who has used every hour of flexibility on medical appointments and arrives already depleted. The low-paid warehouse worker who wants to do an Open University course so they can have a chance at the career they want. These are not edge cases. They are the people for whom the current settlement does not work, and for whom a shifted baseline would mean something real.

Liberalism has always been, at its best, about more than leaving people alone. It is about creating the conditions in which people can actually shape their own lives. Time is one of those conditions. An extra day is not a perk. It is, for a great many people, the difference between a life that is merely endured and one that is actually lived. That is a liberal argument. It belongs to us more naturally than it belongs to anyone else.

Tagged , and | 28 Comments

A single point of failure: Why we need the NHS to remove Palantir.

Most of us by now will have heard of the tech giant Palantir, and its deal with the NHS to build a federated data platform.

Putting to one side the influences of Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Peter Mandelson in dodgy looking tech deals, revolving doors and high-pressure lobbying, the more we look into it, the more questions the NHS Palantir deal raises.  

My team and I have been investigating and asking questions in Parliament.  Last week I, (Martin) secured a Westminster Hall debate on the Palantir issue, and I made the case that Palantir’s implementation of the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) has the wrong contract, the wrong solution and the wrong supplier.

I’m sure most of us at some point in our lives have looked online to try and find a program we need, only to find out to our frustration that you cannot buy it outright and must instead pay a hefty subscription cost. Now, imagine the same thing but instead of paying £50 a year you are paying over £330M that gives you no software, no improvements and no intellectual property at the end of the contract.  That’s what the last government set up. 

But let’s look past the outrageous terms and look at what the supplier has provided for the NHS in past contracts. With such a high price tag it must have excelled at previous tasks, right?

Well, sadly not.  In Autumn 2020, Palantir won a £20 million contract for a border-flow system.  After a year or two this was cancelled as it had no users and no useful function.

And then, despite having no prior expertise in health they were given a contract to help manage the data from the COVID vaccination program.   Although that contract was a loss-leader, given for free…

After that, with influence from the NHS data team, Palantir won the 3-year contract in November 2023 for a Federated Data Platform.  Intended to deliver AI insights into the NHS, this was to connect all 200-odd hospital trusts into a data warehouse and analysis tool.

This subscription service was meant to deliver 13 core capabilities. According to the national audit office and the supplier themselves, after three years they have partially delivered three or four of them.

When they appeared last year in front of the select committee that I sit on (Science, Innovation and Technology), the only improvement Palantir and the NHS team could name was an improvement in managing staff rotas to deliver a higher throughput for operating theatres. 

Now I know this has been an issue for many years in the NHS, but technology has improved vastly, and today even relatively simple apps can do the logistics to rota staff.

Also, I do wonder whether this may be down to Government improvements in staffing and pay rather than the magic of Palantir. 

In what world is this contract a good deal for the NHS?

Maybe it’s not a good deal, but at least the software will be beneficial to patients and improve treatment, right?

Well, there has been many attempts within the NHS to unify its systems through a single IT system. They have all failed bar some improvements towards it’s combined data dictionary. You would therefore expect Trusts and ICB’s to jump at the opportunity for Palantir’s FDP, but after three years we have about half of the trusts stating they are live on the FDP, with just a quarter reporting benefit.

Tagged and | 3 Comments

“Forthright, clear, determined, energetic” – a tribute to Councillor Jeanette Sunderland

Jeanette Sunderland running Photo Credit: Bradford Lib Dems

Some people stand at the front and lead, others sit and back and chunter. Jeanette Sunderland did both, and did them both very well. Forthright, clear, determined, energetic and a real sense of no-nonsense she was a familiar face to so so many of us within the Liberal Democrat family.

In tough times and good Jeanette would be there – often turning up to the by-elections that could not be won, precisely because she knew they could not be won and she wanted to help and thank the team who were flying the flag for liberal democracy.

Across at least three decades Jeanette was a liberal to her core, and her untimely death this week will come as a very real shock to so many.

ALDC was very much a part of who Jeanette was and what she believed in – but she was no sycophant. Few people could express their concerns or criticism so clearly and so nicely – if she was angry you could just tell, words were often not needed. Jeanette was always willing to ask the question no-one else dared. I recall then Party Leader Nick Clegg MP being at an ALDC reception taking questions, Jeanette was straight to the point: “if our MP’s are wiped out in the forthcoming General Election, will you resign?” The room gasped at the boldness of the question and Jeanette added “oh come on, you all know it’s coming and if you don’t you deserve to lose.”

Back in February 1998 we won our first ever seat for over a generation on the City of Stoke-on-Trent, Jeanette rang to congratulate and to arrange a group meeting. I explained that Cllr Ian Openshaw was our first councillor and we didn’t have a Group. Back came the reply: “im planning ahead and suggesting June, that gives you time to win the by-election ward again and become a group of two.” When May came round we won the ward again and I gained a second ward and we became a group of three. I excitedly rang her to arrange an Away Day for June as Jeanette had suggested – she was delighted. I also recall her collapsing into tears of laughter when, catching up at a party conference soon after, i showed her the photo I had taken of a wall in Stoke on which was sprayed “Preserve the past! The future’s f****d!” She quipped through the tears, “well they’re not wrong”.

Tagged , and | 3 Comments

We must stand together against anti-Jewish hatred

Embed from Getty Images

The past week has forced many across our country to confront a deeply troubling reality: anti-Jewish hatred is not an abstract concern, but a present and growing threat here in Britain. Yet there remains a striking silence from parts of our society that have long prided themselves on standing against racism in all its forms.

In the space of just days, three arson attacks have targeted the Jewish community, including petrol bomb attacks on synagogues in Finchley and Kenton. It is only by sheer good fortune that these buildings did not suffer the same devastating fate as the Hatzola ambulances set alight in Golders Green last month. These incidents come only months after the murders at Heaton Park Synagogue on Yom Kippur, and against a backdrop of police data showing that British Jews are, per capita, far more likely to be victims of religious hate crime than any other group.

13 Comments

Why does cautious Starmer keep getting it wrong?

Embed from Getty Images

Yesterday, Keir Starmer faced Parliament to explain how a man who failed his security vetting ended up as Britain’s most important ambassador. It is a question worth asking. But there is a deeper one beneath it: how does a prime minister who presents himself as the cautious, process-respecting antidote to Conservative chaos keep finding himself in exactly these situations?

The Mandelson affair is, in miniature, the story of this government. A political decision was taken — to appoint a Labour grandee to a high-profile role. Warnings existed. Red flags had been raised. The vetting process that was supposed to filter out exactly these problems produced a recommendation to deny clearance. And yet the appointment went ahead, with civil servants apparently acting on the understanding that the prime minister wanted it to happen. When it collapsed, spectacularly, Starmer said he was furious he hadn’t been told. The civil servant who overrode the vetting was sacked. The prime minister, once again, was the victim of events – or was he?

20 Comments

Mathew on Monday: is Keir Starmer the most incurious Prime Minister in British history?

There is something increasingly puzzling – and politically dangerous – about the way that Keir Starmer governs. It is not simply that things go wrong on his watch; every Prime Minister faces crisis, missteps, and the odd unforced error. It is that, time and again, Starmer appears oddly detached from the very events shaping his premiership. As if politics and government are things that happen to him, rather than things he actively directs.

That sense of detachment is beginning to harden into something more troubling: a complete lack of curiosity.

Effective leadership demands an almost relentless inquisitiveness – a desire to know what is happening, why it is happening, and what might be coming next. It requires a Prime Minister to probe, to challenge, to test assumptions, and, crucially, to anticipate problems before they spiral. Starmer, by contrast, too often looks like a man content to sail above the fray – until, inevitably, he is dragged under by a storm he neither saw coming nor seems prepared to confront.

We have seen this pattern repeat itself. Controversies emerge, decisions. Unravel, narratives take hold – and Downing Street appears on the back foot. The sense is not of a government firmly in control, but of one constantly scrambling to catch up with events. That is not simply a communications failure; it speaks to something deeper about how power is being exercised.

Of course, there will be those who argue that this is a deliberate style, that Starmer is seeking to rise above the noise, to avoid the hyperactive, personality-driven politics of recent years. That he is, in effect, trying to de-dramatise the office of Prime Minister. If so, it isn’t working.

Because the vacuum created by that approach does not remain empty for long. It is filled by speculation, by confusion, and by opponents who are only too happy to define the narrative in his absence. Leadership is not about constant noise-but it is about presence. And increasingly, that presence feels lacking. More fundamentally, there is a difference between calm authority and passive drift. The former reassures; the latter unnerves. At present, Starmer is very much in the second category.

Tagged , , and | 14 Comments

Make Culture Really Count

Governments don’t just underestimate culture, media and sport, they depend on them, while systematically failing to sustain them.

In the UK, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stands as a formal acknowledgement that these sectors matter. In practice, it has become a symbol of something else: a gap between rhetoric and reality that has gone unchallenged for too long.

That gap is indefensible. The creative industries contribute £145.8bn to the economy, around 5.5% of GDP and the wider DCMS sectors account for close to a tenth of all economic output. They employ millions, grow faster than the wider economy, and project British influence globally. By any serious economic measure, they should be central to national strategy.

Instead, they are treated as optional.

This isn’t just a matter of perception; it is built into the system. At local level, most spending on arts, culture and sport is not protected. Councils are not required to fund it. When budgets come under pressure, as they have year after year, these areas are cut first. Libraries close. Youth services disappear. Community sport collapses. What is lost is not just access, but opportunity and once gone, it rarely returns.

This is not inevitable. It is the result of political design.

Nationally, the imbalance is just as stark. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport operates with a fraction of the budget of departments such as the National Health Service or the Ministry of Defence, despite overseeing sectors that generate a significant share of UK growth. This is not about affordability. It is about priority and a persistent failure to align investment with economic reality.

Tagged | 2 Comments

What is the best way back into the EU?

I appreciated Gareth McAleer’s article in Lib Dem Voice on the economic power-up to be had from rejoining the EU, but while I support his desire to rejoin I think a different approach will be more effective.

Economic arguments are always difficult and precision hard to achieve. As the saying goes, an economist is someone who if you ask for a telephone number gives you an estimate. It would be better to say that rejoining the single market will be of obvious economic benefit and leave others to fill in the billions. The alternative view, the Boris Johnson idea that …

Tagged | 20 Comments

The Labour threat to the Right to Protest

Last week, the government forced through parliament the controversial “cumulative disruption” power, which enables police to ban protests on the grounds that they take place repeatedly. This attack on the fundamental freedoms of assembly and expression has been strongly criticised by the UN and human rights organisations.

Introduced by the Lords as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, this legislation was not subject to full debate and scrutiny in parliament, MPs were denied a separate vote on the cumulative disruption amendment, and the vote on the bill was pushed through before the conclusions of the independent review.

This is the latest measure in a trend to impose restrictions on the democratic right to protest, and raises serious civil liberties concerns.

As noted by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Strasburger in a recent article for Middle East Eye, banning repeat protests ignores a basic lesson of democratic history – that sustained action is central to achieving democratic change:

From women’s suffrage to civil rights to anti-war movements, meaningful change has always depended on people returning, again and again, to make their voices heard. Curtailing protest simply because it is persistent strikes at the heart of that tradition, and risks targeting the very causes that are most likely to be worthy of protest.

Together with Lord Marks and Baroness Doocey, our justice and police spokespersons in the Lords respectively, Lord Strasburger backed an amendment in the Lords to remove the repeat-protest provisions from the Bill. That amendment was not ultimately put to a vote after the Conservatives declined to support it.

Tagged | 3 Comments

Time is ticking: Britain’s defences need urgent fixing

This week, the government suffered its latest humiliation when Lord George Robertson, a former NATO Secretary-General, ex-Labour Defence Secretary and chair of the government’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review accused the government of “corrosive complacency” in risking the country’s security by dragging his heels on how the government will fund rebuilding its military in the face of the growing threat from Russia.

A rising crescendo of articles and speeches by ex-military, defence correspondents and experts – and our very own Lib Dem defence spokesperson James MacCleary MP – have been highlighting that the government’s Strategic Defence Review remains little more than rhetoric after one year. 

Poland (4.5%), Latvia (4%) and Lithuania (3.7%) have the highest GDP % expenditure of NATO members on defence. Germany is hugely increasing its defence budget by lifting its debt brake to spend nearly €650bn over the next five years. Even France has managed an increase in its defence budget by EUR 6.5bn for 2027, despite a debt level (117% of GDP), higher than the UK’s (110%). However, the UK is in last place (alongside France), in terms of growing its defence budget amongst European NATO partners during the past decade

The shocking state of British armed forces means that we cannot defend ourselves effectively. Aircraft carriers that cannot be adequately protected, an eviscerated Royal Navy with all major ships but one destroyer, one frigate and one Astute class nuclear submarine under maintenance or repair, an army that can barely pull together a functioning brigade of soldiers for immediate deployment. Surely, our armed forces, whose men and women put their lives at risk for the nation, deserve better.

Picture of a tankThe Defence Investment Plan – which our industry needs to produce the weapons and equipment – continues to be “missing in inaction”.   The Ministry of Defence is in a fight with the Treasury for more money – and not getting very far. We are meant to increase our defence budget from 2.3% (£68 bn) to 2.5% of GDP by next year, yet the defence chiefs are now being asked to find £3.5bn of savings, raising fears that weapons projects may be even further delayed. If the Chagos Islands deal eventually goes through, it will lop another 0.2% of GDP off the defence budget. Neither logic nor maths add up. 

Commentators are saying we only have 2-3 years to fix the problem at best we can because of the Russian threat. And already a year has been lost (and four since the second invasion of Ukraine). So the painful question is how can we raise the money for defence in the short time (let alone manufacture the equipment we need)? Some ideas:

Tagged | 20 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

China

The invisible hand of Beijing has been busily pulling the backstage strings to try and organise Iran War peace talks.

Pakistan—which has been the lead country in mediation country—is a close ally of China and is clearly coordinating Its honest broker activities with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi who prefers to remain in the shadows.

Economically China desperately needs an end to Trump’s War. Ninety percent of its oil comes from Iran and, as the world’s second largest economy, China needs global stability to maintain growth.

At the same time, Chinese President Xi Jinping must be smiling to himself as Donald Trump entangles himself in a needless Middle East war which distracts him away from the Chinese priorities of Taiwan, the Philippines and the South China Sea. It also enables him to project China as a nation of calm reasonableness compared to an America run by an erratic president committed to riding roughshod over international law and conventions.

But what China does not want to do is be seen to be actively involved in discussions about the Iran War. This week a host of visitors including the Spanish prime minister and the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi visited Beijing to try to persuade Xi Jinping to offer direct mediation.

Tehran, for its part, has called on China to guarantee its security. The Chinese have the facilities to do the job. They have a naval base around the corner in Djibouti on the Red Sea. Even closer is their port of Gwadar near in Pakistan near the Iranian border. It is currently used exclusively for commercial purposes, but it could be quickly adapted to military use.

But China’s rulers have looked at the sad experiences of the US and concluded that they have little desire to commit their military to the risk of being dragged into a costly war that will undermine their own strength and brand.

Behind the scenes, backstage, quiet diplomacy—yes. Anything more, No, for fear of being blamed for any failure. And where the Middle East is concerned, failure is the name of the game.

Hungary

It is now time for the big Hungarian clean-up. The new prime minister, Peter Magyar has promised just that, and he has a comfortable super majority to achieve it.

But it will not be easy, Orban has packed the media, industry and academia with his cronies. They have all said they would construct legal obstacles to dislodge them, and the courts have also been filled with Fidesz supporters.

From a foreign perspective Magyar’s biggest challenge will be clawing back funding for the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC). The MCC poses as an educational institute but in reality, is the main financial vehicle for funding an international far-right network of institutions, political parties, pressure groups and think tanks.

The funds for MCC come from shares in Hungary’s massive state-owned energy company MOL. Orban organised a transfer of a large bloc of MOL shares to MCC. They in turn have sent funds to the Reform Party in UK, AfD in Germany, the National Rally in France and Vox in Spain. MCC also helps to finance the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC)

Tagged , , , and | 1 Comment

Why Cromwell’s Statue at Westminster Should Come Down

As Liberal Democrats we like to think of ourselves as champions of liberty and the equal dignity of every person. That is why we should be uneasy with the statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament. It is not just a carving in stone. It is a symbol of honour placed at the threshold of our democracy by a state that still chooses to celebrate a man whose rule was built on conquest, massacre and the systematic displacement of entire peoples across Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. If we take …

Tagged and | 39 Comments

Observations of an Expat: The Cost

Trump’s War against Iran has upended the world economy. And it has only just begun. As one economist said: “At the moment things are bad. They are going to get worse and they could become catastrophic.”

At the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meeting of world finance ministers the IMF revised down world economic growth for 2026 from 3.3 percent to 3.1 percent. It then went on to warn that if the Iran War continued much longer there was a real risk of a global recession.

Of the world’s advanced economies, the UK is the hardest hit according to both the IMF and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Predicted growth in the UK is 0.8 percent for 2026, down from 1.3 percent.

Even harder hit are the Asia Pacific countries who are dependent on the Persian Gulf for their gas and oil-based energy. Asia is also the most populous continent and accounts for more than half of global manufacturing which means that economic hits to that region have major global impact. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) reckons that the war has already cost Asia-Pacific countries $300 billion.

Fossil fuels are not the only vital commodity exported from the Persian Gulf. The region is the world’s major source of urea which is a derivative of natural gas and a major component of fertiliser. There is a real danger that the lack of fertiliser will hit global crop yields.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that forty-five million people could be pushed into “food insecurity” and that food shortages could reach “catastrophic levels.”

The Eurozone has also been hit. IMF growth predictions for the Eurozone have been revised down from 1.3 percent to 1.1 percent and inflation is expected to go up from 2.1 percent to 2.6 percent. Trump’s war has made it unlikely that the European Central Bank can cut interest rates. In fact, they may have to raise them. This view is being echoed by central banks around the world.

Germany is the hardest hit of the Eurozone countries. This is because its economy is heavily geared towards manufacturing which in turn is fuelled by oil and gas. Because France derives a large part of its energy from nuclear power plants it will escape a lot of the pain, but the French finance minister has warned about inflation and supply chain risks.

Tagged and | 9 Comments

The Quiet Revival, my Roman Empire, and other times that I’ve been proven right

It is rare that a podcast will make me immediately stop what I am doing.  However, this was the case last summer, when the brilliant ‘Since Churchill and Attlee’ podcast highlighted a study from The Bible Society called ‘The Quiet Revival’. The report claimed to show that 16% of 18-24 year olds surveyed (by YouGov) in 2024 were Christian and went to church at least once a month, rising from 4% in 2018. This survey result was not just extraordinary, but frankly, unbelievable. As I read the Bible Society report for myself and googled the coverage surrounding it, I realised with shock that this report was being picked up as if it was itself gospel.

This brings me to my Roman Empire, something that a person thinks deeply about on a regular basis. My Roman Empire is that, Christianity worldwide (but particularly in North America and Western Europe) is dying out, and that no one else is noticing. This is not to say that I do not have skin in this game. I left Christianity a few years ago, when I realised that I could no longer believe in a deity, much less attend a church, that was less compassionate than I was. A ‘casualty’ of the Christianity’s move towards the political right.

As an observer of the church in the UK and certified data nerd/psephologist, I knew that the data in the Bible Society’s report went against all available evidence. Attendance data from the Church of England and the Catholic Church, data from the UK Census, and the British Attitudes Survey all disagree to a sharp increase in Christian attendance or identification as the Bible Society are suggesting. The British Attitudes Survey even showing the reverse pattern the The Bible Society claim for an uptick in the identification with Christianity. Moreover, the consistent data picture is one of decades of steady decline.  In 1960, just under 7% were on the Church of England’s electoral roll, in 2019, that had dropped to just 1.5%. The 2021 Census shows that identification with Christianity has dropped below half the population for the first time in England and Wales (46.2%, down from 59.3% in 2011).

Why this is all relevant now is because a fortnight ago (27th March) The Bible Society pulled the report and the data/claims that went with it. Now YouGov, which carried out the research, has told the Bible Society that an internal review of the data found that some of the respondents who completed its survey were “fraudulent”.

Tagged | 13 Comments

A UK Wellbeing Economy: The start of a Liberal Democrat vision and plan

We are at our best, as Liberal Democrats, when we have radical vision, challenge the status quo, AND have the plan to match.

Too few people in positions of power truly realise just how deep the failing of the current economy goes. It does not work for too many people.

But the question is not just what a new economy looks like, but how we unpick the old one and move forward.

This article outlines how the Liberal Democrats could construct and communicate a plan for a Wellbeing Economy in the UK. You can find more detail on each of the seven steps below published recently at Critical Mass for Sustainability.

The next stage of economics must be a transition to an economy judged not only by GDP, but by whether people can access care, find fulfilling and secure work, access a thriving local environment, afford a decent home, breathe clean air… all on a liveable planet.

A wellbeing economy matches our party’s deepest values: liberty, equality, community, democracy, and environmentalism.

Freedom, fairness, and equality of opportunity also cut across Liberal Democrat values and form the core of what a wellbeing economy could be:

  • A platform and the freedom to live your version of a best life.
  • Freedom in a fair society that works especially for the least advantaged.
  • Genuine equality of opportunity, not just theoretical opportunity written in law.

That new economy needs a practical route from the current, complex, globally connected system to a better one, built from inside the institutions, incentives, and fiscal realities we have now.

Tagged and | 5 Comments

Three chords and the truth

The new Fabian pamphlet, Common Endeavour, has one of the sharpest lines written about populism this year. In chapter 8, Labour MP Liam Byrne borrows the old country music saying that all you need is “three chords and the truth.” Populism works, he argues, because it plays three simple emotional chords: patriotism, nostalgia, and moral combat. Pride, loss, fight. Simple, repeatable, and perfectly tuned to social media algorithms that reward feeling over thought.

He’s right. And he’s honest enough to admit that mainstream politicians have been answering with word salads while populists holler a battle cry. Reform UK doesn’t win arguments. It wins feelings.

But Byrne’s own answer is where it falls short. His formula for beating populism is “optimism plus fairness plus performance.” That’s a strategy memo, not a song. It tells a government what to do. It doesn’t tell a movement what to feel. You can’t knock on a door and sing optimism plus fairness plus performance.

Liberals need our own three chords. Here are mine.

Power. Security. Respect.

Start with power, because that’s where liberals are different. Labour’s instinct is to fix things for people from the centre. Reform’s trick is to offer the feeling of power by handing it to a strongman. One is paternalism. The other is surrender dressed in a flag.

As countless leaders of radical movements have noted, power is not given, it is taken. I believe that’s not only a radical proposition, it’s liberal as well. 

The preamble to our party’s constitution states that power belongs at the lowest level that works. The implication is that the centre must justify each power it possesses, not the other way around.

Yes, the consequences of this are significant at the local level – neighbourhood budgets and planning decisions made by people who live with the outcome. But power isn’t only a local question. 

As a species, we are wealthier than at any point in history, but the people in the bottom half of the economy aren’t feeling it. That’s not a local problem; it’s a national and global failure of power. Who sets wages, who controls housing costs, who decides where investment goes, who writes the rules of the economy, and for whose benefit? 

Liberals may have cracked the local argument. The national one – dispersing economic power, not just political power – is harder. But it matters, and we haven’t begun to answer it seriously.

Tagged | 1 Comment

100 things @ 100 days

Hello lovely Liberal Democrats!

This week, we reached 100 days since I took office as Party President – and what an honour it’s been so far!

I’ve been working with incredible members, activists, councillors, parliamentarians and staff across our party to help us to reach more people – voters, donors, volunteers, media and more – with our liberal message and to reinforce our position as the last line of defence against populism and division in our country.

Below are 100 things that I’ve been doing since I was elected to play my part in that fight as Party president. It’s not an exhaustive list but I hope it gives a flavour of what I’ve been up to!

(PS It’s in a random order, so please don’t read too much into that!)

9 Comments

Attendance Allowance should not stop at the hospital door

My grandfather, or as I affectionately call him, Bampa, is currently in the hospital awaiting urgent heart treatment.

It’s frightening enough on its own. The hospital is 40 minutes away, so I’m relying on phone calls during the day to keep up to date on my bampa, get on with my work day, and keep my family members updated on what the hospital tells me; suffice it to say, it’s a lot.

And then, recently, my mum had a letter. My mum has been told that, due to how long my bampa has been in the hospital, if he is still there by Sunday, 26 April, his Attendance Allowance will stop.

Now, we’re not expecting him to be in there that long, and he should (we hope) be home by the end of the week. But what kind of state treats its citizens like this? A man who has worked his entire life, never complained about the cards he was dealt in life, having lost his wife only a few months ago, is now in the hospital, and the response from the state is, “Yeah, sorry about that, but if you’re there any longer, we’ll punish you.”

It’s one of those moments when the welfare state shows you why, once again, it is not fit for purpose. What should be a humane system built around the realities of illness, frailty and care is just an administrative machine that is constantly scanning for the point at which it decides support no longer counts.

Attendance Allowance is designed to support older people with the extra costs of disability and ill health. It can range from £76.70 to £114.60 per week. But if someone has the misfortune of being ill and being in hospital for 28 days, their support is suspended, and only resumes when they’re back home.

While this makes sense to Whitehall, considering they fund the hospital stay and therefore the benefit is not needed, life is not lived on a spreadsheet.

Extra pressures do not disappear when someone is in the hospital. Families need to travel, buy essentials for the person in the hospital, spend money on food, parking and transport, manage calls and paperwork, chase updates, prepare for discharge, and carry the emotional and practical stresses of caring. Depending on the treatment, the person coming home from the hospital will need more support than before, not less.

This is what makes the rule on Attendance Allowance so cruel. It operates on a fantasy version of illness, one in which the hospital somehow automatically removes the burdens of care, rather than intensifying them.

The impact on Attendance Allowance has a knock-on effect on the carer’s allowance, too. If the Attendance Allowance stops, the linked Carer’s Allowance also stops, triggering a second financial impact on the same family. This is a direct penalty on ill health and care itself, delivered by a system supposedly in place to support both.

Tagged and | 3 Comments

Why Birmingham is ready for a Liberal Democrat administration 

Ed Davey with Lib Dem campaigners in BirminghamBirmingham is at a turning point. After years of Labour failure, a sense of frustration is palpable across the city. A year-long bin strike, which has left streets filthy and strewn with litter, combined with bankruptcy and council tax increases of 24% over 3 years have left residents fed up and looking for an alternative to the failed Labour administration. This widespread discontent has created a unique opportunity for the Lib Dems to provide the leadership that residents are crying out for. With all 101 Birmingham City Council seats up for election on May the 7th, we have the opportunity to make this a reality. 

As a member of Sutton Coldfield local party in Birmingham, I’ve witnessed first-hand voters turning away from Labour and the Conservatives. When Steve Darling MP visited us recently, he found scores of residents looking for an alternative and expressing their support for the Liberal Democrats. They are tired of being let down by failures in local and national government, and they see in us a party that champions local communities. 

Our candidates across the city are finding that the tide is changing towards us and this isn’t just anecdotal. In October we gained a seat from Labour in the Moseley by-election. This win sends a message to the electorate – that the Liberal Democrats are capable of taking on Labour and winning. 

Our leader, Sir Ed Davey, emphasized this last week when he visited Birmingham for the launch of our manifesto stating:

Tagged , , and | Leave a comment

A very warm Highland welcome for soft southerners

It was a huge privilege and pleasure to spend an extended weekend in the Highlands. Blue letter delivery rarely comes with such a vast helping of scenic delights.

We were very fortunate to have very sunny weather as we delivered in Fort Augustus – a fine tourism centre for Loch Ness (above) visitors.

A stiff breeze on Saturday made our Isle of Skye (below) outing even more photogenic – with white horses on the surrounding sea.

1 Comment

Rejoining the EU – what £1.2 trillion really means for Britain (part 2)

If the UK economy were permanently £180 billion larger every year, and that translated into around £54 billion of extra tax receipts annually, the real‑world impact would not be abstract. It would be measured in hospitals built, nurses hired, waiting lists cut, teachers recruited and classrooms made smaller. This is where the story moves from macroeconomics to people’s lives and to the choices a government can make with new, sustainable revenue.

The NHS: more staff, shorter waits

Take the NHS first. Recent estimates suggest that one additional NHS doctor costs the public sector roughly £100,000 per year when salaries, training and overheads are included, while a nurse costs around £40,000 to £50,000. If even a quarter of the extra £54 billion a year – about £13.5 billion – were directed into health and care, it would support a transformation on the ground.

That level of funding could pay for roughly 135,000 extra doctors or around 270,000 extra nurses, or a mixed workforce of, for example, 60,000 doctors and 110,000 nurses. In practice, a phased approach would be more realistic and more powerful. A government could plan to recruit 5,000 new doctors and 20,000 new nurses each year for a decade, backed up by thousands more radiographers, physiotherapists and paramedics, as well as sustained capital investment in scanners, theatres and digital systems.

23 Comments

Defending Liberalism against the illiberal counter-attack

In Britain, the USA and across Europe an active cultural war is being fought between liberalism and nationalistic reactionaries.  I regret that British Liberal Democrats are playing so small a part in this conflict – fought through the intellectual media and think tank world, within Christian churches (and within Judaism) and across university campuses. Anti-liberal tracts and articles spill out from well-funded think tanks and newspapers in the USA, Britain and elsewhere. Liberal rebuttals are fewer. But Allen Lane/Penguin have just published one full-length rebuttal: ‘Centrists of the World Unite: the lost genius of Liberalism’, by Adrian Wooldridge, who has spent most of his career on the staff of The Economist.

In over 300 pages Wooldridge takes us from the 16th and 17th century origins of liberalism to its contemporary dilemmas. His underlying theme is that liberalism – defined as ‘the belief that society starts with the individual rather than the collective that power is so dangerous that it needs to be restrained, that truth can be striven-for only through open discussion’ – has twice been successfully reinterpreted to meet the challenges of social, economic and international changes, and that we now need a third confident reinterpretation to counter the anti-liberal onslaught we face today.

Also posted in Books | 11 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Judy Abel
    If there were any issues to investigate - and it doesn’t seem that the plagiarism accusation even stacks up from what you say @Mick - this should solely have ...
  • David Raw
    @ Jana I'm sorry, Jana, but you're asking me to take the anecdotal evidence 'of a friend' over the published regulation standards and practices of a public...
  • Mick Taylor
    Too many of my fellow IDs have failed to understand the false allegation of plagiarism aimed at Prof Jason Arday. A PHD thesis necessarily contains the words of...
  • Meral Hussein-Ece
    Thank you for writing about the tragic and shocking racist media witch hunt which surely drove Professor Jason Arday to his death. There’s been little about t...
  • David Allen
    "several people having been offered full time jobs that paid more than minimum wage but then refusing the position on the basis they believed they would be wors...