Category Archives: Op-eds

Sarah Dyke

Improving our food resilience is essential to managing food price volatility

By Sarah Dyke | Thu 9th April 2026 - 11:34 am

Food prices have become one of the biggest pressures on family budgets in Britain. Yet behind the rising cost of the weekly shop lies a deeper problem: a food system that is failing households, farmers and the economy alike.

In the past decade, we have experienced the highest food price inflation in 40 years. UK production of some of our most nourishing foods, such as beans, fruit and vegetables, is stalling as they no longer offer a viable livelihood for farmers. Domestic fruit and vegetable production has dropped by 16% since 2015, and we see the largest trade deficits for fruit and veg – relying on imports for 83% of our fruit supply and 45% of our vegetables. New evidence from a cross-party Parliamentary report shows that, without urgent reform, this could exacerbate across the board, with domestic food production potentially falling by up to a third by 2050.

This increasing dependence on food imports at a time of heightening geopolitical instability and climate disruption has made us more exposed to these shocks than ever before. The outbreak of war in Iran reveals how successive government policy has left the UK’s food supply chain exposed to global factors.

The solution is clear: Britain needs a Good Food Bill. By setting long term targets for food security, production and affordability, legislation could give farmers the certainty to invest while protecting families from future price shocks. Supporting farmers to produce more fruit and vegetables is essential to our food security, while also helping to manage food price volatility in the long term. Too many families are struggling with the cost of the weekly shop as they are subject to volatile prices, making the job of feeding children that much harder for struggling parents. While short-term inflation may fluctuate, long-term forces are pushing costs higher.

The Prime Minister has made tackling the cost-of-living crisis his number one priority this year to rectify Labour’s falling position in the polls. Yet, addressing the challenges within our food system appears to be low on the Government’s agenda. Since the publication of the food strategy last summer, this has yet to be sustained into anything concrete despite 65% of the public supporting a Food Bill which would introduce duties and targets on government bodies to make healthy food more accessible and affordable. We cannot allow a system that delivers rising bills and diminishing domestic production to continue.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Tanya Park

Cheaper fuel isn’t a liberal transport policy

By Tanya Park | Thu 9th April 2026 - 10:06 am

Last week, the party announced an emergency transport package: 10p off fuel duty, £1 bus fares, a 10% rail cut, lower VAT on public EV charging. And the reaction from members has been… pretty muted. I think that tells us something. There’s a shared instinct here that the package doesn’t quite land, and it’s worth working out why.

It’s not that responding to a crisis is wrong. People are paying more to get around because of a war they didn’t start, and a responsible opposition should have something to say about that. The question is whether what we’re saying is distinctively liberal, or whether we’ve produced the package that any of the three parties could have announced on any given Tuesday.

Start with the centrepiece: a 10p cut in fuel duty. This is, bluntly, a regressive measure wearing compassionate clothing. Higher-income households drive more, drive larger vehicles, and capture more of the benefit. The “parent in rural Devon” does real rhetorical work in the press release, but the primary beneficiaries of a universal fuel subsidy are people who drive a lot, and that correlates reliably with income.

More fundamentally, we are in the middle of an energy price shock caused by a war over fossil fuels. The liberal response to that should not be “let’s make fossil fuels cheaper.” You cannot credibly argue for the energy transition while subsidising the thing you’re transitioning away from the moment prices rise. Policy should help people through that shift, not reverse the price signal whenever it bites.

There’s also a basic supply-and-demand problem here. If the Iran war continues or escalates, fuel supplies could be seriously constrained. In that scenario, higher prices do useful if painful work: they reduce consumption, which is exactly what you need when there might not be enough to go around. Cutting duty does the opposite. It stimulates demand at the moment you most need to conserve. That’s not just bad climate policy. It’s bad crisis management.

The bus and rail elements are better. A £1 bus fare is genuinely progressive and I’d love to see it become permanent. A 10% rail cut is at least the right direction. But both are temporary, set for three months, and three months of cheaper tickets doesn’t restore a single cut route or reverse the structural decay that created the problem.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 32 Comments
Jack Wilkin

Trump may be about to burst the tech bubble. 

By Jack Wilkin | Wed 8th April 2026 - 11:29 am

Trump’s war on Iran is impacting more than just the price of oil. It is also impacting fertiliser shipments, which, combined with the UK government decision to tax fertiliser (being introduced in January 2027) will cause food prices in the UK and around the world to increase – hence why the government needs to seriously start looking at food security. Although both are incredibly important, the increase in the cost of oil and food resulting from Trump-Netanyahu’s attack on Iran and the Iranian retaliation is well known. What is perhaps less covered is its impact on the export of helium.

At first glance, the lack of gas that makes your voice squeaky at children’s birthday parties may not seem like a big deal. But it is the foundation of the modern global economy. 

The impact this disruption of helium will have on the global tech industry was brought to my attention by a recent video by Phil Moorhouse. The Gulf States don’t just export oil, gas and annoying influencer videos but also helium, with Qatar exporting 30% of the global helium supply. 

The US economy, for all its supposed strength, has been leaning heavily on one thing: tech. AI. Last year, AI-related capital expenditures were the second-biggest driver in US GDP growth, but all that might be coming to an end now. I do think the overvalued tech sector in the States was going to burst anyway, but Trump’s war might have sped the process up and made it far worse. 

The reason for it is that the tech sector needs helium for the production of microchips – something that is already being impacted by higher energy costs caused by Trump’s war. Chip fabrication involves extreme heat, particularly when lasers etch microscopic circuits onto silicon. Helium is used because it excels at absorbing and dissipating that heat, preventing defects and keeping production viable. Without it, yields fall, costs rise, and output slows.

Blocking Qatar’s helium exports (Qatar sits on the world’s largest single natural gas field) means that the price of helium will skyrocket anyway but repeated Iranian drone attacks on Ras Laffan, the world’s largest liquefied natural gas plant, state-owned QatarGas reported “extensive” damage that will take years to repair and cut annual helium exports by 14%. That means helium exports will continue to be 14% lower even if the Straits are reopened. 

This is already disastrous for microchip manufacturers. Worse still, helium cannot be stockpiled like oil. It leaks, it evaporates, and within weeks it’s gone. There are no strategic reserves to fall back on. This is a supply chain that only works if it keeps moving.  The clock is ticking on the helium in factories around the world. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 1 Comment
Chris Bowers

We need to learn to respect the Greens

By Chris Bowers | Tue 7th April 2026 - 9:32 am

This column is going to make me very unpopular in parts of the party, but there are times when the elephant in the room needs calling out: we have to learn to respect the Greens.

I’m not saying we should love them, I’m not advocating standasides, certainly not a merger; I’m also all for highlighting how we’re different as parties. But I am getting irritated at the number of cheap shots coming from our party that denigrate the Greens. The fact is: Lib Dems and Greens perform a similar function in British politics. We need them, and they need us.

Much is made of the current realignment in politics. This realignment is and isn’t happening. It is in the sense that Reform and the Greens will have a much bigger presence at the next general election – even if their current poll ratings aren’t sustained – which will create a five-party system, or six in Scotland and Wales. It isn’t in the sense that there will still be two main blocs: the progressive/centre-left made up of Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, and the regressive/far-right made up of the Conservatives and Reform.

Continue reading »
39 Comments
Chris Perry

Cost of Living crisis

By Chris Perry | Fri 3rd April 2026 - 10:01 am

Never a day goes by, or so it seems, without mention of the cost of living crisis and programmes on the television helping people to make their money go further. And yet according to the new Forbes billionaire list Elon Musk added $373.5billion dollars (or £373.5billion) to his fortune in just one year. That is £3.5bn more than the £370bn it was estimated the entire COVID pandemic cost the UK. And according to the Equality Trust, this is the biggest ever increase in one year with Elon Musk’s total worth now the 22nd largest economy in the world, beating Belgium.

According to Oxfam global billionaire wealth increased by £1.5 trillion in 2024. In contrast according to the Office of National Statistics the median household income in the UK for the year ending 2023 was £34,500. This was a 2.5% decrease on the previous year

Widening income inequality and increasing poverty are the great social evils of our time and the root cause of so many of today’s problems. It will, therefore, be very difficult for the Government to achieve its objectives whilst operating within the present system and abiding by the rules when it is the system itself which needs changing.

Unless Government addresses pay differentials, bonuses and excessive profits within the larger corporations, utilities and banks, chasing inward investment in search of growth will make the rich richer and create low paid jobs for the masses as it has for at least 40 years. There needs to be a fairer distribution of income within organisations so that everyone gets a fair and proportionate return for their hard work. Extensive studies by the Equality Trust have found that people are becoming increasingly aware that the economy is a human-made system that can be changed,

In April 2024 there were 4.5m children being brought up in poverty, 70% of whom had a parent in work. Although the removal of the two child cap on child benefit will help it should never have been imposed in the first place as it is a child and not a parent benefit. And although the provision of free school meals is to be welcomed this will not reduce child poverty. The definition of poverty is an income of less than 60% of median household income. Free school meals are not an income which is available if the child is off school.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 24 Comments
Tom Reeve

Fly me to the moon – reflections on the overview effect  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
1 Comment
Mo Waqas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defending Local Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 7 Comments
Max Wilkinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 10 Comments
The Voice

Depeerage packages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Tanya Park

My existence is not an ideology

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

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

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

I am, apparently, an ideology.

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Rodrigo Palmer

A Liberal Steady-State Economy? 

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

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

And people know this.

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

Frustration. Anger. Resentment towards the status quo.

And rightly so. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 38 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: War Powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 4 Comments
Kieron Franks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
18 Comments
Wera Hobhouse MP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
Kamran Hussain

An attack on one community is an attack on us all

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 20 Comments
Tanya Park

You can’t cite Cass and cancel the trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Elections kick off – six exhilarating weeks ahead

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

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

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

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

I have to show you …

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

The rules rule

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
13 Comments
Leon Duveen

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

A moment that demands we speak – and act

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

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

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

This does not sit in isolation.

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

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

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

Because words have consequences.

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 8 Comments
Mathew Hulbert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did the Party accidentally vote for a Surveillance State?

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 15 Comments
Sal Aziz

From Devon to York: why the Conference Access Fund matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education in 2050: Preparing Today for Tomorrow’s Schools

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Ukonu Abasi

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 1 Comment
Gavin Stollar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Liberal Democrats should back cooperative housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 18 Comments
Tanya Park

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

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

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

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

The government should be picking up the phone.

What killed NCP – and why it matters

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

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

The opportunity: triage, don’t rescue

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged | 11 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Hirst
    What is it that we want the media, the public and the world to take as the defining message of this conference? Most are not interested in the intricies of our ...
  • Peter Hirst
    This country certainly needs something tangible that demonstrates to the world that it is becoming a different country. A wealth tax might do it if it is compr...
  • Peter Hirst
    We could and perhaps should find people whose human rights are being abused and stand up for them. Whether it's an asylum seeker seaking refuge from persecution...
  • Peter Davies
    As anounced, the basic pension will remain taxable. In the past, this did not affect those whose only income was the state pension because they were below the t...
  • John C
    I've always felt we should have a None Of The Above option on ballot papers. If it gets the most votes, it forces a fresh election where none of the original ca...