Category Archives: Op-eds

Observations of an Expat: Muddling Through

Britain is caught betwixt and between emerging international power lines. It supports Ukraine against Russia and Denmark against America. Whitehall is all for a European defense build-up.

It wants free trade and hates tariff.  MAGA, the cult of Trump and the American swing to authoritarianism is extremely distasteful.

Mark Carney’s middle countries bloc appeals, and the UK is likely to sign up to a Carney-proposed trading bloc that includes Canada, the EU, Britain, and the Pacific Rim countries and excludes the US.

But the British “Establishment” can’t bring itself to break with the US. Britain and America’s economies are too intermeshed. So are the military and intelligence establishments. But perhaps  most telling of all, the “independent” British nuclear deterrent—the deterrent which allows the UK to lay claim to reduced great power status—is dependent on American made Trident missiles.

Britain may no longer be a member of the European Union but the EU is still the UK’s largest trading partner and geographic realities dictate that  Britain’s security is inexorably tied to the continent. In fact, British trade, prosperity and security is tied to both Europe and America and it prospers most when the two sides of the Atlantic work together.

So the Foreign Office mandarins are likely to fall back on the traditional strategic narrative of UK acting as the link between Europe and America; calming troubled waters one day, offering wise counsel another and shifting its limited political weight back and forth to achieve an equilibrium. In short, the UK will “muddle through” with strategic anchors in lands to the East and the West.

It was clear from the recent Munich Security Conference and the NATO defense ministers meeting that an honest broker between Europe and America is becoming increasingly essential.  A furious Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told the Munich conference that trilateral talks between the US, Denmark and Greenland are floundering  as President Trump continues to demand ownership of Greenland.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby told NATO defense ministers that Europe was no longer a defense priority and that “the US would be reducing its capabilities in Europe to a more limited and focused presence” in order to move troops to the Indo-Pacific region.

Tagged and | 11 Comments

Penny for your thoughts?: Why we should have a singular Pound Sterling

Our esteemed Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper recently announced plans to replace the Treasury with a Department of Growth tasked with promoting economic growth and ending the cost-of-living crisis and a Department of Expenditure. The very first event of Spring 2026 Conference in York is the Consultative Session for the Thriving Economy Policy Working Group, doubtless where many members plan to contribute other inspired and radical proposals to boost our economy.

I write to make one such proposal: the establishment of a Bank of the United Kingdom with a complete monopoly on banknote issuance, principally by rescinding the issuing power of the six authorised banks.

Some of you, dear readers, may question the point of this proposal in light of digital payments. With 61% of Britons making cash payments at least once a week, there is still a place for physical payments in our society, especially for use by vulnerable people and in the eventuality of digital system failures.

How banknotes are issued in the UK makes little to no sense. Bank of England notes are not accepted in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and Scottish and Northern Irish notes are generally not accepted in England or Wales by virtue of being promissory notes. Bank of England notes are the only ones that may be traded internationally, included via bureaux de change. This system of barriers helps contribute to the weighting of our economy towards London.

In response to the Great Recession, the 2009 Banking Act required the authorised banks to hold in reserve the same value of Bank of England notes or gold as banknotes they have in circulation, amounting to over a billion. In effect, while a Bank of England £5 note cannot be used in Scotland or Northern Ireland, an authorised bank would need to possess one to ensure the value of every one of its own £5 notes. This leads us to the oddities of £1,000,000 (‘Giant’) and £100,000,000 (‘Titan’) notes which cannot be spent as even readers of Mark Twain may attest.

Tagged | 15 Comments

Scarcity and the Social Contract

Scarcity on the surface

When I sat down for lunch with a local council leader one afternoon, in a café adjacent to a YMCA, one of the first things we discussed was capacity. The ability of the state to serve its people, to foster a society where they can access social mobility, and to give them support when they need it. As I sat down and talked with them, drinking my “woke” chai latte, I understood some of the problems we faced in Somerset and it was upsetting. Children unable to access SEND schooling, or falling out of education. People waiting many months for affordable housing, forced to rent privately. Elderly people living in precarity to afford social care.

Often we think about this country and the state that it is in, and all we can feel is despair; which is completely understandable. The canyon between earnings and living costs is ever-growing. Services keep being cut year-on-year, and there’s no money to restore them in real terms. Councils being forced to tackle potholes, graffiti, and overgrown vegetation like a game of whack-a-mole – I blame Eric Pickles in particular.

In 2010, when we came into government, the economic outlook was not good. We had just faced a global crisis of horrifying proportions, and as such policy programmes were devised. The Conservatives wanted to reduce a “structural deficit” through austerity, so that we could “live within our means”. They believed if they could cut debt as a proportion of GDP, through cutting expenditure, they could close a gap – but look at how much wider it has become.

One evening I was speaking to my Local Party chair, and she informed me it would cost four billion pounds to restore SEND provision funding in real terms. To put that into perspective, that is 18% of Rachel Reeves’ fiscal headroom (£22bn) from the Autumn Budget. Now extrapolate that to the rest of the state. Capacity wasn’t just “cut” in the immediacy of austerity, but it was left to wither. And the British people have paid the price; through fiscal drag, anaemic wage growth, a quicksand poverty line, and the persistent anxiety of precarity.

So what does that have to do with my latte in a YMCA-adjacent café? Well, this wasn’t any café; it supports our community, residents in the YMCA, and even helps people out of precarity. The Purple Spoon provides freezer meals, free to anyone who needs them; no questions asked. It is doing something that is emblematic of social liberal philosophy.

Many decades ago, in a different world, liberals envisioned a state that would support people to live. Not through paternalism, but through liberty through security. Despite what some say, welfare isn’t about paying people to “do nothing”, but two things: investing in people and supporting them. Yet Britain has stopped doing the former, and does the latter quite poorly.

Things can get better

But as I sat there, talking to this council leader and drinking that coffee, despair suddenly turned into hope. Not a naive, euphoric lightbulb moment, but a way forward. We can’t go back to where we were before 2008, but we can choose a better trajectory than managed decline. I understand our problems aren’t simple, but pragmatism and pessimism aren’t the same.

Tagged | 7 Comments

The rise and fall of Captain Hindsight

For many of us growing up in the 1970’s the TV superhero Hong Kong Phooey was a regular fix on our televisions, despite only running for one series of 16 episodes. Mild mannered janitor, Penry Pooch by day, and superhero by night, ably ‘assisted’ by his sidekick Spot the Cat.

Oddly this bumbling character seems an early metaphor for the Starmer government with its bumbling mild mannered Prime Minister and his trusty sidekick Morgan McSweeney, constantly making U-Turns and never really being seen for who he really is by the people around him.

A former bumbling Prime minister coined the phrase “Captain Hindsight” which does sum up his record with a massive seven U-turns before he even got to 10 Downing Street and a further 15 (and counting) since. Perhaps the opening titles to Hong Kong Phooey could be changed for the modern era to:

Captain Hindsight
Who is this super hero?
McSweeney? No.
Angela, the brash northern Deputy? No.
Keith, the mild-mannered PM? Could be!

As of February 2026, the Keir Starmer government has made 15 major U-turns costing the British Economy over £8 billion (est) since taking office in July 2024. These reversals, often following backbench rebellions or legal challenges, include significant shifts on taxation, welfare, and civil liberties.

The problem for Labour is not only the number of U-Turns, but the fact that 15 of them have been on major front line policies, from tax to social care, from workers rights to human rights, and the feeling that it creates in the country is that you really cannot rely on Labour to have your back.

What’s more they have impacted on the economy, and at a time when Brexit is depressing out exports to our largest trading block, causing major financial distress for our exporters, and the Trump government is playing Hokey-Cokey with international tariffs, all this does nothing to bolster the investment markets and generate the much-needed growth.

Tagged | 4 Comments

Why aren’t the Liberal Democrats doing better?

The Liberal Democrats and the need to move away from the ‘Core Vote Strategy’

 After the catastrophe of 2015, when the Liberal Democrats were reduced to eight seats and 8% of the vote, the party needed a serious strategic overhaul. The 20% core vote strategy developed by Mark Pack and David Howarth provided it. It argued that survival required cultivating and appealing to a voting bloc rooted in a younger, more tolerant and pro-remain base. And that foundation could carry the party through difficult cycles.

At the time, that was exactly what we needed. The result has been 72 Liberal Democrat MPs, a series of impressive local by-election results, and institutional power to present as essential to any coalition of the left-centre. It’s what attracted young professionals like me, looking to an alternative to the chaos in Westminster, to join in the first place.

But strategy cannot remain stagnant. The political environment of 2026 is radically different from that of 2015. Voters are simply less loyal to parties, demographics are shifting, and the two main parties are being replaced by insurgent movements. The Labour Party for example has fallen sharply in national vote share since the 2024 election, dropping from 35% to around 21% in recent polling. And the Conservative party faces extinction on the right. And yet the Liberal Democrats have barely moved still hovering around 13% in the latest polls. As the third largest party we should be filling that void.

So what’s holding us back?

The obstacle facing the Liberal Democrats today is not the absence of a clearly defined ideology. It is the absence of perceived viability and the failure to fully capitalise on systemic volatility.

New polling from YouGov, seems to answer some of the puzzle. Among Britons who do not currently intend to vote Liberal Democrat: 31% say they simply don’t know enough about the party and 26% believe voting Lib Dem would be a wasted vote nationally.

The good news from this data is that voters are not primarily worried about our values, the party has broad appeal. They are worried about whether we can win.

The benefits of a broader election strategy

Tagged | 33 Comments

The liberal case for the Employment Rights Act changes

The latest implementation of the Employment Rights Act is not an attack on order; it is a move away from procedural friction and towards fair, workable industrial relations. Liberal Democrats should say so.

The Employment Rights Act changes now taking effect should be easy for Liberal Democrats to welcome. Not because we owe any particular institution a blank cheque, but because we believe in free association, fair process, and accountable power. In the labour market, power is not held only by the state; employers also hold it.

For a decade, trade union law drifted towards procedural friction. The Trade Union Act 2016 added extra thresholds and compliance burdens that went well beyond the basic question a liberal state should ask: is the action lawful, transparent, and democratically authorised? The Government’s own factsheet is clear that the point of repeal is to remove “unnecessary restrictions and red tape” and to reset industrial relations towards co-operation.

What has changed is not the removal of rules, but the removal of rules designed to make lawful collective action harder in practice. The 40 per cent support threshold for “important public services” ballots has been overturned; strike mandates now last 12 months rather than six; and the notice period for industrial action has been reduced from 14 days to 10. Requirements around picket line supervision have been scrapped, and protections against dismissal during a 12-week protected period of lawful action have been restored.

These details matter. When the law becomes a maze, disputes do not disappear; they become more bitter, more legalistic, and harder to settle. Unions and employers end up spending energy on compliance theatre rather than negotiation. Shortening the notice period to 10 days still leaves time to plan safely, but it reduces the incentive for brinkmanship and delay.

There is also a clean civil liberties argument. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 allowed employers in key public services to require specific individuals to work on strike days. Whatever one thinks about service continuity, naming individuals and compelling labour are heavy tools for a liberal democracy. Its repeal at Royal Assent was therefore a welcome return to negotiation over compulsion.

The reforms also take aim at politicised regulation. Both UNISON and the Government factsheet highlight the narrowing of the Certification Officer’s remit, so it is driven by member complaints rather than third-party fishing expeditions, alongside the removal of the Certification Officer levy. Liberals should recognise the principle here: regulators should uphold integrity and member rights, not act as instruments of political harassment.

Tagged | 2 Comments

Palestine and Israel: high time the UK stopped standing by

Liberal Democrats along with the SNP, the Green Party and several Independent MPs have recognised that Israel has committed genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention. So far so good.  

The bad news is that the failure to act by the British and other governments frankly amounts to complicity in war crimes. The UK Government still hasn’t announced how it plans to follow up the 2024 ICJ judgements which warned of the plausible risk of genocide, confirmed that Israeli settlements are illegal and stated that other countries should not have any dealings with those settlements.  

The Trump ‘Peace Plan’ has done nothing to end the occupation, and the Board of Peace includes indicted war criminals Netanyahu and Putin, with not a single Palestinian. (Nor a single woman!). As Kaja Kallas, the EU Foreign Affairs chief, said at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, the Board’s Charter doesn’t even mention Gaza or Palestine and risks undermining the United Nations.

It is 78 years since Israel was created and forcibly displaced over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, systematically murdering many on the way. 78 long years that Palestinians have lived under occupation, displacement, and collective punishment.

In the past 29 months, 72,045 Palestinians have been reported killed in Gaza by Israeli arms. This official toll, which the Israeli military has now endorsed, only includes confirmed direct deaths from bombings and shootings, where bodies have been found. It does not account for indirect deaths, from disease or starvation, for example, or for bodies still under the rubble. Over 500 Gazans have been killed since the so-called ceasefire – many for straying close to the Yellow Line to which Israeli troops have withdrawn but keep arbitrarily moving. 

Tagged , and | 21 Comments

British, northern, not leaving

Last week, Rupert Lowe launched his new “Restore” party. Restore what, exactly? Strip away the branding and the flag-waving and what you’re left with isn’t renewal. It’s resentment. It’s grievance politics dressed up as patriotism.

To me, it looks like a diet BNP the same division, repackaged for the social media age.

And I’m tired of pretending it isn’t dangerous.

Circling this movement are voices openly advocating “re-migration” the idea that British citizens like me should be sent “back” somewhere else. Steve Laws has pushed exactly that kind of rhetoric. According to this worldview, my place in this country is conditional.

I was raised in Bolton, making me a Boltonian

My accent is Northern. My upbringing was working-class. I grew up around graft, shift work, tight budgets and pride in standing on your own two feet. I support England in the football. I complain about the weather. I queue properly.

But because I am brown and Muslim, there are people who believe I don’t quite belong.

That should alarm anyone who believes in equal citizenship.

Alongside “Restore” sits the so-called “Advance” party. Advance where? Because this feels like reverse gear. Even Ben Habib, who aligns himself with this hyper-nationalist energy would, by the cold logic of “re-migration,” eventually find himself on the wrong side of the same purity tests. Ethno-nationalism does not stop at one target. It keeps narrowing the circle.

History has shown us that, again and again.

I am Northern. I am working-class. I am British-Pakistani. I am Muslim. Apparently that makes me suspect in certain political circles. What angers me most is that these movements claim to speak for the working class.

Tagged | 29 Comments

The new Gilded Age: A liberal case for radical reform

In 1900, the wealthiest one per cent of people in Britain controlled an estimated 70 per cent of all personal wealth. By 1990, that share had fallen to under 20 per cent. It was the most sustained redistribution of wealth in British history, and it was not inevitable. It was the product of deliberate policy choices: progressive taxation, labour rights, universal public services, and democratic reform.

That settlement is now being unmade. The wealthiest one per cent of UK households again hold the same share of wealth as the entire bottom half combined. The 50 wealthiest families hold more combined wealth than 34 million people. UK billionaire wealth has grown roughly four times faster than median household wealth since 2008. We are living in a new Gilded Age, and it should trouble liberals deeply, because concentrated wealth is concentrated power, and concentrated power is the enemy of individual freedom.

This is the point that gets lost when inequality is treated as a concern only for the left. The liberal tradition, at its best, has always understood that freedom without material security is hollow, and that unchecked economic power threatens political liberty just as surely as unchecked state power. Lloyd George understood this when he introduced the People’s Budget of 1909. Beveridge understood it when he identified Want as one of the five giants to be slain. The question is whether today’s liberals are willing to apply that same logic to the new concentrations of wealth and power that define our era.

At A Just Society, we argue that they should, and we have set out a detailed programme for how. Our proposals operate across the same three domains that ended the first Gilded Age: taxation, universal provision, and democratic reform.

Limitarianism would introduce a progressive annual levy on extreme wealth: 1 per cent on fortunes between £5 and £10 million, 2 per cent up to £1 billion, and 3 per cent above that. The revenues would be earmarked for opportunity-enhancing investment: ending child poverty, a £10,000 citizens’ inheritance for young adults, care provision, and the green transition. This is not punitive redistribution. It is the principle that extreme fortunes built on shared foundations should sustain those foundations.

Tagged and | 62 Comments

How can the UK protect itself?

Sir Ed Davey’s recent Defence proposal to start selling war bonds so that we can “move far faster” on UK defence spending, was welcome. The state of our armed forces is far poorer than these dangerous times call for. The UK’s ability to project its defensive capabilities within our own neighbourhood would be severely tested and likely found wanting if it were to be needed any time soon.

Whilst I was pleased to see that there were the beginnings of a party plan on funding the defence investment needed. I was left wondering how ready we are as a party for war, hybrid war or almost war. Sir Ed rightly called out that “we’re in almost a Cold War type scenario” with a nod to Russian use of drones, submarines and shadow fleets, calling it a “serious threat”. However, I believe this underplays our current predicament. 

If we take stock of where we are today: the Russian state has poisoned British citizens in Salisbury; assassinated an opposition leader in London; directed relentless cybercrime attacks against the UK costing us billions; had its ships cutting our allies communications cables; is likely directing drones interfering with our military bases; using our children as tools of attack against us; caused the death of many UK citizens through disruption to the NHS; is directing arson attacks on London and may be encouraging another migrant crisis to disrupt social cohesion. 

Is this peace? It doesn’t feel like it.

Is it too hard to believe that with a mixture of dark web, bitcoin, crime gangs and vulnerable youth we are close to the Kremlin orchestrating a campaign of disruption and destruction across Britain? Our transport links are vulnerable to something as simple as a person being seen walking on or near a train line. We’ve already seen what damage untrained amateurs can do to our defence capabilities.

Tagged | 12 Comments

All aboard the status quo: We don’t need a department for growth; we need a department for beyond growth.

Let me make this clear: GDP is not an accurate measure of prosperity. Nor is it an adequate measure of wealth. As Robert U. Ayres argues in “The Economic Growth Engine”, it is a measure of economic activity. It only accounts for capital that is generated as a result of the depletion of “natural capital” (i.e the environment).  It does not account for societal wellbeing; nor does it account for the losses of wealth (i.e pollution) resulting from the depletion of “natural capital” resulting from economic activity.

So with all of these limitations, why on earth are policymakers, politicians, and economists still using it as a metric for social and economic progress?

Not accounting for the costs of pollution is a choice, but the fact is that these costs remain present. The reason why we don’t see the costs of economic growth is because economists dismiss them as “externalities”. This is how the current Labour Government can justify that a “win-win for economic growth and natural recovery,” (DEFRA: Environmental Improvement Plan, 2025) can happen, even though growing the economy is inherently coupled to the depletion of the natural environment. You don’t get an economic product from nothing, you have to get the resources from somewhere, and that only comes from either the extraction from the natural environment or from solar energy.

Aside from the essential renewable energy transition which can use solar energy to fuel the pursuit of economic growth, there will always exist economic needs and thus industries that require the extraction of natural resources. The EV transition is an example of this, with electric batteries requiring the extraction of critical Earth minerals. The increasing demand for EVs due to the green transition will inevitably lead to greater depletion of the natural environment.

It can be correctly argued that a move to a circular economy will reduce the pressure for industry to extract resources from the natural environment. The circular economy is a vital component of an environmentally just world: by extending the life-cycle of products we can massively reduce the environmental impact of the economy. However, even if as Ayres argues that 100% recycling is theoretically possible in a closed system, it is not a practical aim.

As an item is recycled, the useful energy we can extract from it degrades over time. The more times we recycle a product, the more energy we have to put in to extract the useful energy out of it. We would have to put increasingly larger amounts of energy into a product to recycle it, and this aim is not realistic.

How many solar panels, wind farms, dams would we need to build to obtain this energy to recycle these products repeatedly, on top of the increasing electricity demand that we require for the green transition? Imagine the extent to which we would have to deplete the natural environment to extract the necessary raw materials required to build that.

Tagged and | 31 Comments

Mathew on Monday

On NATO, the extremes are a risk Britain cannot afford

For once, Keir Starmer is right.

When he says that Reform UK on the Hard Right and the Greens on the Hard Left pose risks to NATO and, by extension, Britain’s national security, he is identifying something serious.

From opposite ideological poles, both parties advance instincts that would weaken the alliance that has underpinned European security for over seventy years.

That should concern all of us.

Reform’s worldview is, from what I can tell, rooted in a kind of muscular unilateralism. Alliances are treated with suspicion. Multilateral commitments are portrayed as constraints on sovereignty. There is an underlying assumption that Britain would be stronger if it stood more alone.

History suggests otherwise.

Britain’s security has never rested on ‘splendid’ isolation. It has rested on partnership-on shared defence, intelligence cooperation and collective defence. NATO is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is the backbone of that system.

On the other side of the spectrum, elements within the Green movement have long been uncomfortable with NATO’s very premise. There remains a strain of thought that sees military alliances as inherently proactive and imagines that scaling back defence commitments would somehow make the world safer.

It would not.

In an increasingly dangerous world, with Russia waging war in Europe, authoritarian regimes flexing their muscles and global instability rising, weakening NATO would not reduce tensions. It would invite miscalculation.

Deterrence only works if it is still credible.

Now, let’s be clear. Supporting NATO does not mean pretending it is perfect. It must adapt to new threats. It must modernise. It must ensure democratic accountability and maintain public consent. Liberal internationalists should always press for reform and renewal.

But reform (small R) is not the same as retreat.

There is a profound difference between improving an alliance and hollowing it out.

The superficial attraction of the Hard Right and Hard Left to some may, arguably, be understandable. They offer clarity. They offer bold rhetoric. They promise decisive breaks with the status quo. In unsettled times, that can feel appealing.

But national security is not the place for ideological experiments.

Britain’s safety rests on stable alliances, credible commitments and steady leadership. NATO has preserved peace in Europe for decades precisely because it binds democracies together in collective defence.

Undermining that framework, whether in the name of nationalist sovereignty or moral idealism, would make us weaker, not stronger.

This is where the Liberal Democrats must be absolutely clear.

We are the party of responsible internationalism. We believe in NATO because we believe in cooperation between democracies. We believe in reform because we believe institutions must evolve. And we reject the isolationism of the Hard Right and the naïveté of the Hard Left.

The political centre is not a halfway house between extremes. It is the place where serious governing happens. In a world that is becoming more volatile, not less, Britain needs steadiness, credibility and alliances that work.

On NATO, that means strength and reform, not retreat.

We must back Vince Cable on a full and fair investigation into Andrew

Tagged , , , , , , and | 9 Comments

Are Bank Account Rules the Answer?

By any measure, opening a bank account in the United Kingdom is a serious business. You prove who you are, where you live, and pass security checks designed to stop fraud and protect the public. Yet on social media—platforms that shape elections, fuel abuse, and influence our children—anyone can appear with a fake name, no identity, and no accountability.

It’s an absurd imbalance, and rather than ban people from social media, it’s time we corrected it.

If we were to apply the same identity-verification rules used by UK banks to the creation of social media accounts it would be a long-overdue step toward basic digital responsibility—one that would reduce fraud, curb anonymous abuse, and help law enforcement respond to real threats. 

Banks don’t demand ID to be nosy – they do it to keep the system safe. The same logic applies online. Social media has become a place where anonymous accounts can target individuals, spread disinformation, or commit fraud with near-zero risk.

A system could be established where users would verify their identity using a government-issued document, proof of address, and a simple biometric check—just as they would at a bank. Crucially, this doesn’t mean everyone must post under their real name. Pseudonyms and anonymity in public spaces would remain. But behind the scenes, platforms would be required to know who is using their services, and to share that information with law enforcement when legally required.

Some might argue that such a policy could harm people without standard documents. But there are alternative verification pathways—through trusted charities, local authorities, schools or emerging digital-identity schemes. The intent is not exclusion, but protection.

Victims of online harassment know the pain of being attacked by nameless profiles. This policy would give those victims something they rarely get today: a real route to justice.

Tagged and | 13 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Panic

Trump is panicking. He knows that come November the Republicans are highly likely to lose control of the House of Representatives. They may also lose control of the Senate, but it would take an electoral miracle for the Democrats to win the two-thirds majority necessary to boot Trump out of the White House.

But loss of the lower house would be bad enough. It is the lower house that could impeach him for the third time.  Democrat-control of the House of Representatives, can, make it very difficult for Trump to continue to implement his far-right agenda. They can investigate all of the actions of his first two years and block, impede and obstruct anything he has planned for the final two years.

The multi-million dollar jet given to the future Trump presidential library by Qatar will come under scrutiny. The same goes for all the business deals struck by his family and friends and the bitcoins the family have floated. The politicisation of the civil service; tariffs; weaponisation of the Department of Justice to attack his political opponents; pardons for the Capitol Hill rioters and various cronies; misuse of emergency powers; questionable expansion of presidential powers and, of course, the Epstein files, will all come under a Democrat-controlled political microscope.

For the past 18 months the public have been asking: Where are the Democrats? Well, they have been they have been collecting evidence and biding their time. In a radically divisive America, they had little room for manoeuvre without a majority in either of Congress’s two houses.  Every time the Democrats tried to act, they were blocked by Trump’s congressional lapdog, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

That will change dramatically if – as expected—the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in November.

Which is why Trump is panicking. And he is panicking now because he needs to start employing every clean and dirty political trick to prevent a Democrat win.

The president has already tried gerrymandering—the redrawing of electoral boundaries to ensure the desired result. This backfired. Republican Texas complied with presidential wishes, but their moves were made redundant by counter gerrymandering by Democrat-controlled California.

Tagged | 14 Comments

When billionaires self-combust 

You’ve got to admire Sir Jim Ratcliffe. It takes a certain kind of genius to build a bonfire out of football tribalism, Brexit politics, tax avoidance, right-wing dog whistles and historical colonial sensitivity, set fire to it and then throw yourself on top. As self-immolative performance art goes, it is unbeatable.

The Manchester United co-owner managed to offend almost everyone this week by declaring that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants”. Not “immigration has risen” or “we need border controls” or any of the hundred ways you can open a debate on migration policy without sounding like you’re auditioning for Reform UK. No, he reached for “colonised” – the one word guaranteed to make historians wince, former British colonies seethe, and Man United’s Muslim Supporters Club issue a statement questioning your basic decency.

The Monaco resident – Sir Jim moved there in 2020, saving himself an estimated £4 billion in tax – also found time to claim Britain’s population had risen from 58 million in 2020 to 70 million now. The actual figure was 67 million in 2020. But why let the Office for National Statistics ruin a good rant?

This is the same Sir Jim who wants UK taxpayer money for his stadium project. The same Sir Jim whose football club employs players from a multitude of nationalities and whose fanbase spans the globe. The same Sir Jim whose club’s success was built by Cristiano Ronaldo, Eric Cantona, and generations of immigrants who apparently “colonised” Old Trafford into 13 Premier League titles.

Even the masterful wordsmith Kelvin MacKenzie couldn’t save him. The former Sun editor gamely tried, pointing out that Ratcliffe has “paid more tax than his critics combined” – which would be more persuasive if Ratcliffe still lived somewhere with income tax. 

Admiring Kelvin’s masterful display of cognitive dissonance, Duncan Bannatyne declared “I’m in”, before launching into a diatribe about billionaires in Monaco being different from boat arrivals because they’ve “paid into the system”. A bold claim about someone whose entire Monaco strategy was specifically designed to stop paying into the system. On Dragons’ Den, that would get you five outs and a clip on YouTube titled ‘Worst Pitch Ever’. Even Kelvin must have been wishing Duncan were a silent partner. 

Tagged | 11 Comments

A Jenkinsite debate on breaking up the Treasury

Daisy Cooper’s call to break up the Treasury and create a new Department for Growth is the kind of proposal that deserves more than reflex applause or suspicion. It is not simply a change of ministerial job titles, but a complete restructuring of the British state, and it raises the question of whether such restructuring helps or hinders long-term prosperity outside Westminster and London.

What follows is a friendly, Jenkinsite-based debate between two Liberal Democrats who agree on the destination: a Britain where wealth, power and opportunity are less concentrated, and where institutions are accountable to the whole country. Where we differ is on the mechanism; Jack argues that breaking up the treasury would begin shifting economic decision-making closer to the places that live with its consequences, whereas Andy is more cautious and asks whether restructuring Whitehall risks repeating old patterns unless it is matched by deeper decentralisation.

We both offer views in the spirit of liberal pluralism: serious, practical, and aimed at better outcomes.

Jack Meredith:

A Jenkinsite case for Daisy Cooper’s Department for Growth is simple: Britain cannot devolve prosperity while Whitehall retains the economic steering wheel. “Treasury brain” is not just a habit; it is a structure. When one department controls fiscal policy, economic policy and spending approvals, it naturally prizes what can be booked this year over what pays off over a decade. That bias has helped trap the country in low investment, weak productivity and regional imbalance.

Breaking up the Treasury is therefore a decentralising reform in practice, not only in rhetoric. A Department for Growth with a clear, long-term mandate would change incentives across government; growth becomes an organising principle, not an afterthought. Pairing it with the Department for Public Expenditure also clarifies responsibility: one institution drives prosperity; the other disciplines spending. That separation matters because it reduces the temptation to raid future growth for today’s headlines.

Basing the Growth Department in Birmingham strengthens the message. Location is policy. Moving a major economic department out of London signals that the UK’s economic story cannot be written from one postcode. It forces ministers, officials, and stakeholders to view the national economy as a network of places rather than as a single city with a hinterland.

This reform fits liberalism’s core purpose: dispersing power so that citizens and communities can shape their own futures. A growth department can be the engine room for “Team UK”; a single front door for business, trade, and investment, aligned with national priorities and better living standards. It can also sharpen Britain’s external focus, as a serious growth mission requires fewer trade barriers, especially with our nearest markets.

If we want to get Britain growing again, we should start by rebuilding the state around long-term prosperity and start moving economic power closer to the country it serves.

Andy Chandler:

I should perhaps begin with a small confession. When I first proposed to Jack that we write on the Liberal Democrats’ announcement to “break up” the Treasury from a Jenkinsite perspective, I was initially ambivalent. It did not feel like the bread-and-butter reform I had hoped for, though I broadly welcomed the principle of loosening the grip of the Treasury “blob,” which so often seems to restrain rather than enable. Yet when I learned Jack was favourable, I decided, for the sake of debate, to re-evaluate my position to see if I could articulate an opposing view.

Tagged , and | 21 Comments

What is the point of LibDem Conference?

On Tuesday, a somewhat cryptic message went up on Lib Dem social media promising a “big announcement” at 09:00. Naturally, expectations were raised. When a Party primes its members and supporters like that, you assume something substantial is coming — a major defection, implementation of a flagship policy passed by Conference, or a decisive shift in direction.

Instead, what we got was… rebranding the Treasury as the “Department of Growth.”

A dull, inoffensive, and uninspiring ghost of New Labour if ever I saw one.

We’re told its functions will be reorganised and the whole department relocated to Birmingham. For a policy supposedly rooted in growth, this sounds like a costly exercise in administrative musical chairs. Moving a major Whitehall department is not cheap.  Rebranding is not cheap.  Structural upheaval is not cheap. If the goal is efficiency, this feels like a curious starting point.  And, I’m not going to lie, naming it the Department of Growth (DOG) sounds concerningly close to Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), and the last thing we need to do is to follow Labour into echoing MAGA slogans—though, at least, we haven’t paired red baseball caps with our resemblant new slogan. To me, it all sends entirely the wrong message.  

But, on top of this being a confusing policy move, the way this has been handled and communicated undermines the fundamental democratic foundations of the Party.  

As Liberal Democrats, we pride ourselves on being member-led and listening to our members.  Our Federal Committees, Federal Council, and Federal Board are formed of members who are elected to their positions.  They’re accountable to the membership and can be removed by the membership.  Meanwhile, policy is debated, amended, and adopted at Conference through a 1 member, 1 vote.  We all acknowledge that this is not an optional extra—it is the democratic heart of the Party and is what sets us apart from Reform, the Conservatives and in more recent years, the Labour Party.

So I am genuinely confused as to why this announcement has been presented as settled Party Policy when it does not appear to have been passed through Conference. Conference exists for a reason: to ensure that members, not just the Parliamentary Party, determine the Party’s direction. If we circumvent that process, even for something that might seem technical or presentational, we chip away at what makes us distinct. 

I have a massive problem when the Parliamentary Party just does stuff, and unilaterally writes its own brand new policy, rather than applying their own initiative to implement policy.  Not to bang the same drum, but I do find it suspect that very little noise is being made in the Parliamentary Party about recently passed Party Policy such as Free to Be Who You Are, as well as the several historic conference motions passed on Universal Basic Income.  It remains clear that Conference-approved policy is not treated as gospel, but as advisory rather than authoritative. 

Tagged , and | 31 Comments

Parliament is falling down. Liberals should seize the moment.

Last week, the Restoration and Renewal Client Board published its costed proposals for saving the Palace of Westminster. The options have been narrowed to two: a full decant costing up to £15.6 billion over 20 to 25 years, or a semi-decant that could take 60 years and cost approaching £40 billion. A £3 billion first phase of works would begin this year.

The debate that follows will focus, as it always does, on where to put MPs while the building is fixed. Richmond House? The QEII Conference Centre? How big should the temporary chamber be?

But there is a more interesting question, and it is one that liberals should be leading on: why do we still assume that 650 MPs need to be in the same building at all?

We already know this works

During the pandemic, the Commons went hybrid. MPs participated remotely in questions, statements, and debates. Select committees took evidence from witnesses across the country and the world. Electronic voting functioned securely. The Hansard Society found that remote committee work was one of the most valuable innovations of the period, and Liberal Democrat MPs were among the highest users of hybrid participation.

Then Jacob Rees-Mogg ended it, forcing a return to physical-only proceedings without even allowing a debate on extending the arrangements. The Hansard Society called the decision “over-hasty, poorly thought-through, unwise and unnecessary.” MPs with disabilities, caring responsibilities, and constituencies hundreds of miles from London were simply shut out.

That decision was wrong then. Revisiting it now, when Parliament faces its biggest logistical crisis in a generation, is not just sensible. It is a democratic opportunity.

This is a liberal argument

The case for hybrid working is not really about technology or convenience. It is about who gets to participate in democracy and on what terms.

Westminster’s culture of presenteeism is a filter. It selects for people who can spend four days a week in London, maintain two homes, endure late-night votes, and have no caring responsibilities that conflict with an unpredictable schedule. It penalises MPs with disabilities, new parents, and anyone whose constituency is not a short train ride from SW1. It concentrates political power in London and weakens the connection between MPs and the communities they represent.

Liberals have always understood that institutions are not neutral. They shape who participates, whose voice is heard, and how power is distributed. A Parliament that requires permanent physical presence in central London is not a level playing field. It is a system designed by and for a particular kind of person, and it excludes others by default.

Hybrid working would not eliminate the demands of the job, but it would make those demands compatible with a wider range of lives. That is not a perk. It is a basic condition for a more representative democracy.

The building becomes something better

Tagged | 18 Comments

UPDATED: Daisy Cooper announces new economic policy – Get Britain growing again

In a major speech in the City of London this morning, Daisy Cooper has announced Liberal Democrat plans to break up the Treasury and move it to Birmingham.

A new Department for Growth would include the Department of Business and Trade’s responsibilities and would have a mandate to boost long term sustainable growth. It would be a single point of contact for business and investment.

A smaller department for public expenditure would control departmental spending

Stronger economic growth would be recognised as the only sustainable solution to the country’s problems. This would come alongside a better relationship with Europe.

This department would align tax policy so that Labour mistakes like the rise in employers’ National Insurance Contributions could never happen again.

Basing it in Birmingham would be a strong signal that we want to rebalance the economy across the whole country and as the only party with MPs spanning the Highlands and Islands to south west,  we see the differences in growth between the south east and everywhere else.

She argued that if we could close the productivity gap between Birmingham and London,we could boost tax revenue by $4 billion which could, for example, provide 80,000 teachers

She said that rising inequality and cost of living pressures were grinding people down. The C0nservatives and Labour have failed and the British public who are left wondering if anyone knows how to fix it.

This all comes with a slogan: Get Britain Growing Again.

Farage wants to break things, not fix them. Others want to hoard power in London. Conservatives are chasing Reform saying that moderates are not welcome in their party.

She said our future liberal economic vision are rooted in the values which have guided us for hundreds of years. We champion international trade, fair markets and wealth creation.

Wealth creation and social justice, she argued, are two sides of the same coin. She concluded:

We believe we can give people a sense of hope, end the cost of living crisis and build the UK’s future by all of us for all of us together.

She then took questions from journalists. The BBC’s Nick Eardley asked how she could justify the time and money to be spent on this. Daisy replied that the plan was  entirely consistent with existing plans to move civil servants out of London. We would prioritise this particular department. He followed up by asking why Birmingham rather than the north of England, Scotland, Wales?  Daisy’s answer: our second city has good combination of manufacturing and financial sectors and if we boost it will help other places around the UK too.

Also posted in News | Tagged , , and | 36 Comments

Dunfermline by-election – 20 years on from an historic and unexpected victory

Twenty years ago today, I and many many Lib Dems took to the streets of Dunfermline at the crack of dawn to deliver our Good Mornings.

We were quietly hopeful that we would be able to “Send Willie to Westminster” which was a bit of a miracle given the pickle the party found itself in at the time. Our leader Charles Kennedy had just resigned after a bit of a psychodrama and many of us felt pretty bloody annoyed about that. During the by-election campaign itself, there were multiple tabloid stories about potential replacements.

But when we are under the kosh, we can do great things. The party worked together to deliver a fantastic campaign. Willie Rennie was well known from the very north of Scotland to the very foot of Cornwall so activists came north in huge numbers. We quickly established momentum with a petition to remove the tolls on the Forth Road Bridge.

People in the then brand new Eastern Expansion were fed up of the construction traffic which led to the famous “Mud on Roads” special Focus.

I was on casework, working with Ed Maxfield who once co-wrote a book on winning elections. I joked that he used to spend his days shifting work from his desk to mine, but most of my work came from an energetic candidate who seemed determined to pick up at least 3 pieces of casework from every door he knocked on. He’d bound in at 9pm every night and hand it all over.

Downstairs, Liz Barrett ran many things, including front of house. She’s now a councillor in Perth. Working alongside her was Gladys Herbert. Gladys had not been involved in politics before but had married the local party chair a few months before. She took to it all so well and was so generous with her time. Everybody just adored her by the end of the campaign.

James Simpson was a very popular local councillor for Dunfermline City Centre, a ward now held by Aude Boubaker-Calder.  James famously took a good hour to walk from one end of Dunfermline High Street to the other because people kept  chatting to him. His knowledge and passion for the people of his ward were invaluable to me as I worked through the casework mountain.

Tagged , , and | 2 Comments

Mathew on Monday: Labour has lost its way – and the country is paying the price

Watching the unfolding political drama in Westminster over recent days, you could be forgiven for wondering if the British public have been dropped into an episode of ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ rather than living real lives under a Labour government. Instead of focusing on the pressing challenges facing everyday Britons – from the cost of living to the NHS crisis – the spotlight has been firmly fixed on internal Labour turmoil, bitter factional rows and the fate of its own leadership.

The resignation on Sunday of Sir Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, amid the controversy over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK Ambassador to the United States, was always going to make headlines. But the speed with which that story has dominated the political coverage tells you everything you need to know about where Labour’s priorities lie. McSweeney stepped down taking “full responsibility” for advising on the appointment – a move that critics argue has damaged trust in politics itself.

And, as if one senior departure wasn’t enough, the Prime Minister’s director of communications, Tim Allan, has today also quit fewer than twenty-four hours later. In a terse statement, Allan said he was making way for a “new No.10 team.”.

But what the public see is not reinvigoration – it’s retreat, upheaval and instability at the heart of government.

All this comes at a time when families across the country are still struggling with inflationary pressures on essentials and long delays in accessing NHS care. Hard-pressed workers, young people, and pensioners do not wake up each morning thinking about Downing Street personnel changes – they worry about whether their energy bills are manageable, whether their children’s surgeries are being scheduled, or whether their parents will be left waiting hours in A&E.

Tagged , , , and | 14 Comments

Celebrating Progress – Leading with Pride

This recent cross-party weekend organised by the Local Government Association brought together councillors from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative groups from across the country. While it was encouraging to see such a broad geographic spread, it was disappointing that no other parties were represented and that the South of England was noticeably under-represented. Even so, the diversity of experience in the room made for a rich and thoughtful programme.

The theme of the weekend was Leading with Pride — and how that sits alongside both your role as a councillor and your identity as a member of the LGBT+ community. …

Tagged and | Leave a comment

Why Vince is wrong about Gorton

Jackie Pearcey surrounded by orange diamondsHowever much I love Vince Cable, I can’t let his comments urging people to vote tactically for Labour in the forthcoming Gorton and Denton by-election pass without comment. He told the I Paper:

He pointed out that in previous by-elections and at the last general election, the Lib Dems had benefited from tactical voting by presenting themselves as the main anti-Conservative force in certain areas.

Cable – who was business secretary in the coalition government before leading his party from 2017 to 2019 – said: “First of all, the Lib Dems are not going to win here.

There is a flipside to tactical voting – the Lib Dems have benefited from perfecting organised tactical voting, and there is a reciprocal side of it that when we stand no chance of winning, we have to be honest about what we would do instead.

We do have a duty to get behind the candidate – and the sense I get, we’re all floating in the unknown here, is that whether it’s local surveys or the kind of feedback our people are getting on the ground, is that, for all the problems of the Labour Government they are still strong enough to present the main challenge to Reform and we have got to therefore get behind them.

Where he is right is that we do, of course, encourage tactical voting when we are in a position to win a seat. Squeezing the third, fourth or fifth place candidates’ votes is a legitimate campaign tactic. We need those people to vote for us if we are going to do well.

And I suspect that many Lib Dems vote tactically to stop other parties at the same time as campaigning in target seats to ensure other Lib Dems win. And I’m not going to judge them. However, it’s not for us to pro-actively encourage our supporters to vote a certain way. It’s for the party who wants their vote to persuade them. We might, by the size of our campaign in a particular area not stand in their way but we should always be about encouraging people to vote Lib Dem.

The party spokesperson who responded to Vince’s comments did so with respect, which was good.

Vince Cable has made an invaluable contribution to the party over the years and he is entitled to his own view.

As a party we’ll always make the case for voting Liberal Democrat, and that’s why we’re standing a candidate in Gorton and Denton and fighting for every vote.

For me, though, there are no circumstances in which I could vote Labour at the moment. There is a time when I might have considered voting tactically for them. The closest I ever got was in 2015 to counteract the SNP surge. However, I voted Lib Dem because I didn’t think my Labour MP was worth saving.

Not now, though. Labour are clearly worried about the Scottish Parliament elections because they canvassed me a couple of months ago. I told them that they had disappointed so much on various things, such as the two child payment, Starmer’s “island of strangers” speech and the way they had thrown trans people under the bus that I wouldn’t even give them a preference in a Council election (we have STV up here).

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the idea of voting for another party to stop Reform. Farage’s party is the ultimate nasty party that brings the worst of Trumpian politics to Britain. And we only have to look at innocent protesters being gunned down by barely trained thugs on the streets of Minneapolis, people being ripped from their families and sent to prison in another country without due process, the blatant corruption (Trump has enriched himself by a minimum of $1.4 billion) in the first year of his second term and the dismantling of the international order and democracy itself in the US to know that we don’t want that here.

But Labour’s answer to Reform has been to imitate them, to ape their narrative and paint themselves as a sort of Reform Lite. And the more they do that, the more the Reform narrative on immigrants, on marginalised groups of people, becomes embedded.

Tagged , , , and | 36 Comments

Carl Cashman on the BOYS! BOYS! BOYS! podcast

Slightly left field interview here with Carl Cashman, Leader of the Lib Dems on Liverpool City Council.

Is he correct?

Tagged | 10 Comments

Tactical voting is a tool, not an instruction

By-elections invite panic. Turnout drops, narratives harden fast, and parties start talking as if politics is a single emergency in which only one “responsible” outcome is acceptable. The coming Gorton and Denton by-election in Greater Manchester is already being framed that way. In the i paper, Vince Cable is reported urging Liberal Democrat supporters to vote Labour, and leaning into an “Operation stop Farage” style argument.

I understand the instinct. First Past the Post encourages defensive voting, and Reform thrives when an election is reduced to a binary contest. Many liberal voters will look at the race on polling day and decide that they want to block Reform. That is their right, and it is their decision.

The problem is not tactical voting. The problem is senior figures trying to choreograph it.

When voters are told where to park their ballots, it turns citizens into pieces on a board. It accepts the most corrosive lesson of First Past the Post: that politics is about managing fear rather than choosing a programme.

Liberal Democrats should be arguing against that distortion, not modelling it.

Worse, it hands Nigel Farage the story he is always trying to tell. Populism thrives on the claim that there is a single political club, an establishment, and that outsiders must break it up. Cross-party nudges to fall in behind Labour make that claim easier to sell. Even when the intention is sincere, the optics look like a stitch-up; they validate the “they are all the same” posture that Reform uses to recruit protest voters.

The i report captures the awkwardness. A Liberal Democrat source described the seat as “a big safe Labour seat”, then pointed to the elephant in the room: reciprocity. Liberal Democrats are often urged to be the grown-ups, to make space, to stand aside. Labour is rarely asked to do the same for us. When we benefit from tactical voting elsewhere, it is usually because we have earned trust locally and persuaded voters directly.

Tagged | 29 Comments

Have you heard the one about…

… the Three Politicians who walked into a bar?

“Mine’s a pint of Red!” declaimed the Socialist.  “For Society, Fairness and Solidarity.  With Labour in charge, of course!”

“Beg pardon” said the Liberal “but I don’t like your coarse chumminess.  Individual Liberty must come first.  I am the Captain of my Soul.  A glass of Yellow, if you please!”

“While you two are fiddling” declared the Green “The planet is burning.  We only need buckets of water!”

“I don’t understand you people!” said the Barmaid.  “Isn’t it obvious that we all need to be free, happy, thriving  individuals, living in a fair, harmonious and successful society, and all working to save the planet?  Why can’t you work together and get things done, instead of squabbling amongst yourselves?”

“We’re not squabbling!” chorused the Politicians.  “We are holding profound philosophical debates which are crucial to all our futures!”

“Rubbish” chipped in the Landlord.  “All we need is a decent government which cares about putting things right.  Just look at the jailed subpostmasters still not getting justice.  Look at the Ombudsman ruling that the WASPI women should get compensation and the Government refusing to pay.  Look at the ever-growing queues for the law courts, driving tests, council house repairs, NHS operations, everything.  What are your political philosophies any good for?”

“Well” piped up the lady from the Advertising Agency, as she sipped her G&T.  “Democracy is all about salesmanship.  To win, you need a strong narrative.  Philosophy can help.  The Socialist narrative of solidarity and equality was once very successful.  The Liberty narrative served Britain well during Hitler’s war.  But since then, philosophy has taken a back seat.  Macmillan went for the prosaic narrative ‘You’ve never had it so good’.  Then Starmer made it ‘You’ve never had it so bad!’”

5 Comments

Liam McArthur’s tribute to Jim Wallace

There have only ever been two MSPs for Orkney: Jim Wallace and his successor Liam McArthur. Liam worked for Jim as a Special Adviser when he was First Minister. You can see Jim’s influence in the way that Liam works to bring people together.

Yesterday the Scottish Parliament held tributes and flew flags at half mast. We start with Liam’s heartfelt tribute to his old boss and mentor.

The text is below:

Tagged , , , and | 1 Comment

The kindness of Jim Wallace

It has been said many times over the past few days that Jim Wallace was a kind man. It speaks volumes that almost everyone you might ask has an example of this kindness. Here is my own. It is a doubly useful anecdote because it is quite embarrassing for me, and very complimentary to Jim.

Just a day or two into the Shetland by-election of 2019, when I was but a stripling in the world of political campaigning, I was assigned to go door knocking with Jim and another gentleman whose name, face and history I have entirely forgotten. Despite being a newbie to the world of canvassing I was the only one of us with the know-how (and perhaps the necessary smartphone) to run the canvass sheet on Connect and work out where to go.

We headed out from Lerwick south towards Levenwick area, on a gorgeous, blustery August day, and began marching up and down hilly roadsides to knock doors. After some time and some progress I noticed that the next nearest place on our list had a whole host of names on the electoral register, and we duly headed in that direction. On reaching the address we discovered that this hub of voters was, in fact, a nursing home. After a brief discussion, Jim and I went in.

Let me reiterate now that I was a novice in the world of canvassing, and had not a clue about what the appropriate approach would be in this situation.

The appropriate approach, as you might now guess, is not to canvass that location. This is partly because it is seen as being an intrusion on the days of elderly people who have a right to a quiet life and a lack of bothersome campaigners, but mostly because in the eyes of seasoned and cynical campaign managers, it is a complete waste of time. If someone is in their 90s and in a nursing home, and they are going to vote at all, they have probably already made their mind up already – and possibly some decades prior – on which party will receive their ballot.

Tagged and | 2 Comments

Jim Wallace on 25 years of devolution

Today is going to be a bit of a Jim Wallace Day here. There have been so many wonderful tributes to him from people in and beyond the Liberal Democrats, a testament to how loved he was and how important he was a figure in Scottish life, not just politics.

But we start with his own words, a speech he gave in 2025 to Scottish Conference, three days before the election was called, marking 25 yesrs of the Scottish Parliament:

Grateful for the invitation to speak. Fascination with anniversaries which end in a 5 or a 0. I once heard the late Rev Gilliesbuig Macmillan, Minister of St Giles Cathedral, say how often he was invited to preach at a 50th, 100th, 125th anniversary of a church congregation, but added that if he’d been invited to speak at 129th anniversary he’d have accepted by return.

But 25 years is as good as any to reflect on the Scottish Parliament – what Donald Dewar described as ‘a new voice in the land’ – its successes or where it has fallen short of our expectations; and what contribution our party has made during these 25 years – and indeed before 1999 in helping to create and shape the Parliament.

When I was thinking about this, three particular memories came to mind.

Firstly, as an 11 year old in my final year of primary school, I was fascinated by the 1966 General Election and used to wait outside the school gates to get the autographs of the candidates arriving for their election meetings. Recognising this political interest, my father decided to take me to a meeting. It was the Liberal candidate, Roy Semple’s eve of poll meeting. As I recall my father saying, “It will be safe, there won’t be many people there.”

One vivid memory of that evening was the learning of the Liberal Party’s commitment to a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. I thought it was a good idea then – and it still is today. 

Six years later, I joined the Scottish Liberal Party, having read Russell Johnston’s pamphlet ‘To be a Liberal’. And one of the real privileges of my life was to lead the party I joined, aged 17, into the Scottish Parliament, which distinguished predecessors had campaigned for, and which we, as a party through the Constitutional Convention, had done so much to shape. And not only into Parliament, but into government too. 

I have another memory of sitting on the Terrace of the House of Commons in about 1997 or 98, being lobbied by those who sought implementation of the Scottish Law Commission’s Report on facilitating the legal procedures relating to adults who lacked the capacity to enter into legal transactions. The prospect of the Westminster Parliament finding the time to legislate for such an exclusively Scottish reform seemed remote; but within weeks of the Scottish Parliament obtaining its powers on 1st July 1999, I had the privilege of bringing in the Bill to advance such a reform.

And my third memory was walking with my daughters from the place of the old Parliament, adjourned in 1707, to the site, albeit temporary, of the new Parliament for the official opening by our late Queen Elizabeth. We had campaigned for a family friendly Parliament and many of us were determined that our children should accompany us to the opening. The Presiding Office, David Steel, was under pressure from the GOC Scotland not to have children in the procession as it could upset the careful timing of the event. My wife wrote an impassioned letter to David making the case for the inclusion of children As David Steel admitted to me, when under pressure from GOC Scotland, om the one hand, and Rosie Wallace on the other, there was only one possible outcome and our children processed with us.

At long last we had the Parliament for which Liberals and Liberal Democrats had campaigned for over a century. And as the Scottish Liberal Democrat who had the privilege of leading the party into that Parliament and then into government, I recognise how much we owe to people like Jo Grimond, Russell Johnston, David Steel, Johnny Bannerman and countless other stalwarts who kept the fire of Home Rule burning through some very difficult and unrewarding times.

But as time marches on, I often feel that we need to remind people why we campaigned for a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. 

Just over ten years ago, as Advocate General for Scotland, I was invited to address a class of first year law students at Aberdeen University. Before going in, the head of the Law School took me aside and said, “Just to be aware. Most of your audience can’t remember a Scotland without a Scottish Parliament.” And that was ten years ago. We have a new generation of young Scots who take the Parliament’s existence for granted. 

We have a generation who may well be politically aware, but who have no memory of the time when if Westminster, if we were lucky, might deal with two exclusively Scottish Bills in a year. We were proud of our distinctive legal system, but conscious in these days that it was a distinctive legal system without a distinctive legislature. 

Let’s recall that the first Act of the Parliament plugged a legal loophole which had led to a man who’d pled guilty to killing a neighbour being released from the State Hospital. Most commentators agreed that Westminster couldn’t and wouldn’t have acted so expeditiously. 

And in the years which followed Liberal Democrats in government contributed to an overhaul of mental health legislation. We implemented Scottish Law Commission reports on the abolition of the feudal system, which England had done in 1290; and modernised the law relating to tenanted property. We gave communities the right to buy land and gave individuals the right to responsible access over land; we established National Parks; introduced free bus travel for older people, free eye and dental checks abolished tuition fees, and introduced free personal care for the elderly and proper proportional representation for local government elections.

Perhaps most significantly, particularly in public health terms, was the ban on smoking in public places. We blazed the trail and the rest of Britain followed.

Nor was the 1998 Act a static settlement. It is a home rule settlement which has shown itself to be flexible in meeting Scotland’s needs and opportunities from the early devolution of powers which allow Scottish Ministers to develop our renewable energy resources; through the subsequent transfer of powers which paved the way for renewing Scotland’s rail infrastructure and enacting a more liberal freedom of information regime. And the powers of the Parliament were further increased by the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016.

Leave a comment

What democratic maturity asks of political parties

“A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living”.

These were the words of John Dewey, from his 1916 book, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.

Without prior knowledge of Dewey’s work, I found that he captured my belief in democracy and its purpose in just one sentence. I have never believed that democracy is simply ticking a box or a group of people simply making decisions on behalf of others. It is about individuals making a collective decision about how their country should be run, what their society should look like, which views are acceptable to express and share, and which should be condemned. That decision changes over time. For political parties, this means democratic responsibility does not end when votes are counted. Accepting defeat is only the beginning; what follows is a test of patience, humility, and long-term commitment.

I also believe that political parties can never dictate society’s direction, no matter how much they want to. They must accept that, in a democracy, they are participants, not directors or masters. This means society can move in directions parties resist, and the response cannot be to burn down the house or to abandon principles in a rush to recover lost ground, but instead to embrace the loss and ask, “What can we learn from this?” It’s very easy to say, “Well, the voters were prejudiced?”, and there very well may be a degree of truth to that thought. But it doesn’t mean parties allow themselves to stay in a permanent sulk or adopt those views. Blaming the electorate and abandoning principles are, in different ways, attempts to avoid the more complex work of democratic reflection.

For the Liberal Democrats, that means democratic responsibility does not end when votes are counted; it also includes how we behave, organise, and learn in the space between elections.

Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    A clear, credible, principled strategy from the Yorkists! Makes a welcome change. Sadly, followed by twenty below-the-line posts, providing nearly twenty ve...
  • Simon McGrath
    so we get a permanant increase in costs for these subsidies based on ( alleged ) windfall profits. Its another big increase in spending -how is it to be paid ...
  • Peter Davies
    @Kira CollinsThat assumes we want to help people more with their energy bills than with all the other bills they may be struggling with. There is no reason why ...
  • Rob Heale
    Agree that we need to focus on strategy and have clearer messaging:- 1. We MUST prioritise membership recruitment in all we do, including PPB's, most leaflets...
  • Kira Collins
    Disappointed. The most obvious means of reducing energy bills is to remove VAT. Relatively straightforward to do and does not adversely impact on the attractive...