This is a companion post to a review of “Liberal Crusader – The Life of Sir Archibald Sinclair”.
Sir Ed Davey recently spoke to Liberal Democrat Voice and provided this tribute to Sir Archibald Sinclair and his colleagues:
Sir Ed Davey recently spoke to Liberal Democrat Voice and provided this tribute to Sir Archibald Sinclair and his colleagues:
Lib Dems demand release of Venezuela legal advice as Starmer again refuses to say whether Trump breached international law
The Lib Dems are calling on the Government to publish any legal advice it has received on breaches of international law by the United States in its strikes on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas …
The arrest and removal of Nicolas Maduro by the United States is a moment that should chill anyone who believes in international law, the rules-based order, and liberal democracy.
Let’s be absolutely clear from the outset: no one is defending Maduro. He presided over a brutal, corrupt, authoritarian regime that crushed dissent, hollowed out democratic institutions, and inflicted immense suffering on the Venezuelan people. His removal from power will prompt relief in many quarters – understandably so.
But relief cannot become amnesia. What matters here is how power is exercised, not simply who wields it. The unilateral seizure of a foreign head of state, without international legal authority or multilateral backing, is a profound breach of the very system of rules that liberal democracies claim to uphold. The rules-based international order does not exist to protect dictators, it exists to prevent chaos, lawlessness, and the return of “might makes right” geopolitics. Once we decide that international law applies only when it is convenient – or only when the violator is an adversary – we surrender the very moral authority on which liberal democracy depends.
That is why Ed Davey is right to have spoken out clearly and unambiguously. His stance – condemning this action while reaffirming commitment to international law -is precisely what principled leadership looks like. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to oppose authoritarianism without endorsing lawlessness. The same clarity and moral purpose has been evident in his decision to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Denmark in the face of reckless rhetoric over Greenland. Sovereignty matters. Borders matter. International norms matter. We cannot credibly defend democracy abroad if we equivocate when those principles are tested by our friends.
Which brings us to the deeply disappointing response from the British government. Keir Starmer has, in effect, chosen to have no stance at all. Carefully worded evasions, an instinctive reluctance to upset Washington, and a studied vagueness masquerading as responsibility. This is not diplomacy; it is abdication.
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton today set out his party’s plans to fix how the NHS trains and retains the doctors, nurses and other staff needed to end long waits for treatment and reinvigorate local health services, and urged voters to use their second, peach-coloured ballot paper to back them at May’s election.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats’ strategy will:
…
Liverpool Lib Dems Spokesperson on Governance, Cllr Richard Kemp, has written to the Home and Community Cabinet Secretaries of State suggesting that when the position of Elected Police Commissioner is abolished in April 2028, they should be replaced with new Police Liaison Committees made up of representatives of the local upper tier or unitary councils in the areas that they cover.
Lib Dems campaigned against their establishment and welcome their abolition for the same reasons. They are pointless, costly, confusing, are inadequately scrutinised and lack the gravitas to push innovative ideas forward.
There are two ways forward, the attachment of the role to Regional Mayors or creating a new Police Liaison committee with the local authorities that they cover
I strongly favour the latter approach. In practice there are no other services provided by the Mayor which provide adequate links to the actions required outside crime fighting.
For example, a Merseyside Police Liaison Committee composed of members from the 5 councils who have responsibility for crime prevention and community safety would ensure that strong links are created between the police service and councils who are responsible for most of the services that could, in the long term, prevent criminality and in the short-term deal with problems faced by communities.
Does post-growth economics belong in the Liberal Democrats? Questioning the principle of eternal economic growth is such a heresy to the orthodox economic order, that by most it is rejected outright. We live in a world so addicted to growth that envisioning a world that exists outside this paradigm is seen as almost impossible.
We are currently experiencing a social-ecological polycrisis: rising inequality, climate change, it is all driven by the economy transgressing several planetary boundaries. Green growthers respond to this by rightly identifying that green investment and a path to net zero is essential to tackling the climate crisis. They also correctly cite examples of countries such as the UK managing to relatively decouple GDP growth from carbon emissions, which is great.
However, GDP growth must not just be relatively decoupled but absolutely decoupled from environmental impact. Green growthers argue that green growth will provide the necessary technological innovations required for absolute decoupling to occur.
However, when you apply the laws of thermodynamics to analyse the relationship between our natural environment and the economy, a different picture emerges. We can consider earth to be a closed system for materials and an open system for energy because Earth receives solar energy. The second law of thermodynamics sets the physical limits for economic processes from physical work and production to the energy needed to use information (Landauer’s Principle).
In what is likely to be a dramatic set of local elections this May, Birmingham is poised to be one of the most notable, with huge opportunities for the Liberal Democrats.
Think of Birmingham City Council and it’s likely the words ‘bankruptcy’ or ‘bin strike’ will come to mind. While these have done huge damage to the city, they are just a couple of the worst examples of Birmingham Labour’s failures. For example, the council has suffered badly from the botched implementation of a new IT system, now 4 years late with cost overruns of more than £100m. These failures have had a hugely damaging impact on the city. Birmingham’s relative levels of deprivation and child poverty, already bad, have worsened significantly in recent years.
Birmingham does have huge potential, thanks to ongoing major investments linked to the coming of HS2 and plans for a new multi-billion pound Sports Quarter led by the owners of Birmingham City. The opportunities to unleash the talents of our young city on the world are huge, but this will clearly require a change of leadership in the Council.
Be of no doubt, Brummies are fed up of the Labour Party. The combination of national unpopularity and local failure will be toxic for them at the ballot box in May. Already the signs of change are notable. Labour lost a vote in November’s Full Council and while largely symbolic it highlighted their losses through defections and our recent by election gain in Moseley. These have taken their numbers down from 65 out of 101 Councillors after the 2022 elections, to 53 now.
The question is not whether they will go, but who will replace them. There is clearly a risk that we jump out of the Labour frying pan into the Reform fire or the chaos and division of Your Party. By contrast, we are offering a positive platform of change focusing on getting the Council running efficiently, listening to communities and delivering core services well.
The 2026 local elections will see a 6 or even 7 party system operating in the city, so organisation and targeting will be particularly important, with seats likely to be won with as little as 25% of the vote. As well as ourselves and Labour we have one of the few remaining urban Conservative groups and a couple of Greens. Significant new challenges will clearly come from Reform and in the inner-city areas; the Your Party / Independent movement will challenge, though they may break into different factions.
The Liberal Democrats have seen steady growth in recent years. in the 2022 all up elections we grew from 8 to 12 and in Moseley made the only by election gain by any party in the current term. We represent all types of ward, from inner-city Aston, to middle class Moseley and the more suburban areas of Yardley. The hard work of our councillors and campaigners stands in stark contrast to what many communities have experienced under Labour.
I was delivering care early one morning when the radio cut through the routine. The BBC was reporting that Donald Trump had authorised direct military action in Venezuela, framing it as a decisive move to remove the tyrant Nicolás Maduro from power.
I won’t pretend to shed tears for Maduro. He has spent years hollowing out democracy, crushing opposition, and driving millions of Venezuelans into poverty and exile. But geopolitics isn’t a boxing ring where the loudest punch wins. It’s more like a line of dominoes: once the first falls, you don’t get to choose how the rest collapse.
When the world’s hegemon decides it can cross borders using “security threats” as justification, it lowers the bar for everyone else. If Washington can point to Venezuelan cartels near its borders, what stops Beijing pointing to “anti-CCP agitation” in Taiwan? What stops Moscow, again, from insisting Ukraine is merely a defensive necessity?
This is how small justifications become big wars. History is littered with leaders who said, “Just this once.”
Trump presents himself as a peacemaker. He boasts of being the “peace president”, even claiming credit for preventing nuclear war between India and Pakistan. But that reveals a shallow understanding of reality. India and Pakistan have been nuclear powers since the late 1990s. They endured an eight-month military standoff in 2002, the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and repeated border crises since none escalated to nuclear war because both sides understand what mutual annihilation actually means. Nuclear deterrence is not Trump’s personal achievement; it’s grim arithmetic.
And the optics matter, because Trump is not governing from a position of strength. His approval rating sits in the low-to-mid 40% range, with disapproval consistently higher. When domestic legitimacy weakens, foreign “strength” often becomes political theatre the strongman equivalent of waving a flag to distract from cracks at home.
It’s not the done thing for the leader of a powerful country to send his people in to arrest the leader of another country, regardless of how awful a human being he is and ship him and his wife back to said powerful country to face trial.
I am not an expert in international law, but this does not seem to follow any kind of due process.
One of the most depressing things about the first year of the second Trump presidency is that Trump and his officials have got away virtually unchecked with horrific abuses of process carried out by his administration particularly in the treatment of immigrants, whether they have documents or not.
Congress has been unwilling to hold him accountable for misuse of his presidential powers over tariffs.
And the international community has treated him with cloying obsequity in the hope of getting a few crumbs from his table.
This is by far the least of the administration’s outrages, but when its Vice President comes over here and attacks this country and European neighbours for suppressing freedom of speech and gets the hospitality of our Deputy PM rather than the riposte he deserves, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
What Trump should have had from across the world today is a chorus of condemnation. What he’s had is some vapid word salad from Keir Starmer:
Asked if he condemned the US action, as a number of other UK politicians have, he told reporters he wanted to “establish facts” and speak to Trump first about the “fast moving situation”.
The EU’s top diplomat pulled her punches too, though at least she acknowledged the illegality. From the BBC:
The European Union’s top diplomat said the situation in Venezuela was being closely monitored.
Kaja Kallas said the EU had repeatedly stated that Maduro “lacks legitimacy” but defended a peaceful transition.
She said that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected”.
Ed Davey, on the other hand, has been a lot more robust:
Keir Starmer should condemn Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela.
Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator, but unlawful attacks like this make us all less safe.
Trump is giving a green light to the likes of Putin and Xi to attack other countries with impunity.
Just imagine if Xi ordered his troops to arrest Lai Ching-te, the leader of Taiwan.
Or if Putin went in to Kyiv and nabbed Zelensky.
Other Lib Dem MPs have also commented.
Al Pinkerton said:
As if the recent US National Security Strategy wasn’t clear enough, today’s illegal invasion and kidnapping in Venezuela sends a stark signal to dictators everywhere: force works.
That is a lesson Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be only too happy to learn — and one for which we may all end up paying a very high price.
Make no mistake: Nicolás Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate leader. But that does not and cannot justify acting unilaterally, without allies, and outside international law.
Just before the Christmas recess I sat down in the Commons cafeteria opposite a Conservative front-bencher whom I knew. ‘There will have to be a coalition after the next election,’ he told me, ‘bringing you together with Labour and the Greens.’ I realised after absorbing this that he was effectively telling me that the Conservatives could not revive in time to hope for a majority, and that the prospect of either a Reform majority or a Tory-Reform coalition gave him nightmares.
It’s 3½ years at most until the next general election. Plenty of crises and shifts in political moods may intervene to alter the pattern that opinion polls and local by-elections have indicated over the past year – of five parties between 10% and 30% in England, with six or more competitive in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But it’s wise to anticipate the likelihood of an indecisive outcome. We would probably then have to negotiate – and successfully manage – a multiparty government. The current Labour Government is floundering in large part because the campaign it fought to win its majority did not provide it with the programme needed for successful government in difficult domestic and international circumstances. The circumstances that will face the incoming government – of whatever colours – in 2029 are likely to be even more difficult than in 2024.
Many readers of LibDem Voice will groan at the thought of entering another coalition. But we’re in politics to promote liberal principles, and the most effective way to promote them is to be in power, locally and nationally. So we need to learn lessons from the 2010-15 coalition and from earlier attempts to cooperate with other parties.
To start with, we need to admit that Liberals are instinctively too inclined to trust others, to be optimistic about outcomes and to believe in rational negotiation. David Steel was naively confident that Callaghan would reward the support we offered his shaky government in 1977-8. In 1996-8 Paddy Ashdown was far too trusting of Tony Blair, not appreciating the hard and partisan men behind him. Nick Clegg set out to demonstrate that coalition government would work, without being sufficiently suspicious of those behind Cameron who wanted to push through their Conservative agenda while leaving the Liberal Democrats to take as much of the blame as possible. Next time we have to be harder, more suspicious and more politically partisan.
In the 2010 coalition government the 53 Liberal Democrat MPs served to close the small gap between the 306 Tory seats and an overall majority: too much of an imbalance to stop most Conservative ministers behaving as if they were still the majority party, let alone to change significantly the working methods of Downing Street, Whitehall and Westminster. Parliamentary numbers matter enormously in our flawed political system. If no party in the government has much above 200 MPs, and we have gained well over 100, we will be better placed from the outset. Winning more seats is a necessary precondition for effective shared government.
2025 has been a good year! It has quite a few ups and a few downs, however as humans, we have an amazing ability to adapt and embrace the most difficult challenges. I had many moments when I thought: “what’s the point of all of this” and many moments, when I felt energised, driven and highly motivated.
From a professional perspective, I have experienced quite a few changes; after many years and some amazing experiences, I left my full-time job with the Community Alliance Broxbourne and East Herts and I started a new role with the North Herts and Stevenage CVS. I am very pleased that I set up my consultancy, something that I have always wanted to do. I already have an opportunity to work on a number of existing projects, which included development work as well as running several workshops.
I also became a Deputy Mayor of Welwyn Hatfield, something that I would never think was possible. For me this new chapter hasn’t changed my approach to the Local Government, which is all about the service, being an enabler and a catalyst for residents and communities.
Is there a magic ingredient, which makes it all possible? No, there isn’t. Every day has its own good and difficult moments. It is up to us to make the most of each moment that is given to us. I think that our mind-set can be often our greatest ally or enemy. It is so important to look after ourselves, find the right work-life balance, enjoy the company of friends, loved ones and find joy in simple things. It is equally important to nourish and develop our talents, as they drive individual fulfilment but also they can positively impact the wider society.
Maybe this should be our goals for next year? To concentrate on building meaningful relationships, which can help us to grow and boost our confidence and motivation? Maybe it is time to truly unlock our potential so that we can “fuel” innovation? Or maybe, shall we all try to be more in the present moment, which will bring us peace and harmony? Maybe, life is not only about completing tasks and adding up achievements?
Whatever we decide to do, I hope that the New Year will bring us hope and belief that the greatest gift we can give to each other is time and ourselves. Let’s make every moment count and let’s make it memorable!
As we enter 2026, the UK is in desperate need of a political reset. From manufactured outrage to simplistic blame games, this is the age of TikTok politics, where complex policy challenges are reduced to 40-second clips, and success is measured more in social posts shared than real lives improved.
But here’s the crucial reality check: most people are absolutely sick of it. Young people especially tell me all the time how the whole tribal and adversarial politics is a complete turn-off. “Why can’t you politicians all just work together?” one asked me plaintively the other day.
And I completely share their frustration.
Because the challenges facing our communities really are too serious for this kind of divisive, clickbait politics. Whether it’s the cost of living, the housing emergency, or community safety, people need real-world solutions, not social media soundbites. The increasing polarisation and politicisation of issues we’ve seen in recent years just doesn’t help anyone. Real progress requires working across the political spectrum and bringing communities together rather than hammering a wedge between them.
That’s where I think City Hall politics can offer a better example to follow. Not least, of course, in having some form of proportional representation as we do here in London to make each vote count and ensure a more diverse political spectrum so everyone feels they have a voice at the table.
But it’s not just our fairer voting system that national politics could learn from, it’s the far more collaborative style of working together you find in the London Assembly. Even the chamber where we meet is set up for a better kind of politics – seated around a table together, rather than glaring at each other from across a dispatch box.
Yesterday we congratulated four Liberal Democrat members who had been given honours in the New Year list. Thanks to Mark Pack we can now add two further names.
John Housley has been awarded the British Empire Medal in this year’s New Year Honours List, in recognition of his services to the community in Chapeltown. He has served as Chairman of Ecclesfield Parish Council on three separate occasions over a long period of service as a councillor.
David Lerner, an active member of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, has also been awarded the British Empire Medal for services to the Jewish community in the London Borough of Harrow.
Congratulations to both of them along with thanks for all they do for their communities.
Do let us know if we have missed any others.
I’m just breaking into our festive break to offer our congratulations to the four Lib Dems honoured by the King in the New Year’s Honours.
Tilly McAuliffe, the Party Treasurer with the job of bringing the money in, gets a CBE for parliamentary and political service. I first met Tilly at Autumn conference in Glasgow either 12 or 13 years ago. She is bright, engaging and she gets things done and I’m thrilled to see her work recognised.
Peter Dunphy was a brilliant chair of the Federal Finance and Resources Committee when I was Scottish Party Treasurer. We worked together really well …
Andrew George MP frames his recent article on Lib Dem Voice (“Israel/Palestine: Complicity”) around laudable principles—respect for law, opposition to hatred, and concern for civilian life. However, those principles are undermined when language departs from legal definitions, evidence is selectively presented, and allegations of the gravest crimes in international law are asserted as settled fact when they are not.
This matters not only for accuracy, but because such rhetoric risks feeding narratives that blur into antisemitism under the guise of moral critique.
The most serious flaw in the article is the repeated assertion that Israel is committing “genocide.” Genocide is not a descriptive adjective; it is a specific crime defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, requiring proof of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. As of today, no international court has ruled that Israel is committing genocide.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often misrepresented in public debate, has not found Israel guilty of genocide. In its provisional measures rulings, the ICJ explicitly stated that it was not making a determination on the merits of the genocide claim. Provisional measures are procedural safeguards, not verdicts.
To describe Israel as having been “recognised” as committing genocide is therefore factually incorrect and legally false. Misusing the term genocide not only cheapens a grave legal concept but also contributes to the collective demonisation of the world’s only Jewish state—a pattern that, historically, has had direct consequences for Jewish communities far beyond the Middle East.
There is no question that Gaza has experienced an acute humanitarian crisis, including severe food insecurity. However, the claim that Israel is deliberately starving Gaza as a policy of war is not established fact. Independent monitoring mechanisms such as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) reported famine-level risks in parts of Gaza in early 2024. Yet subsequent assessments in 2025 concluded that famine conditions were not present across Gaza, largely due to increased aid flows following ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.
Severe hunger persists, but that is not the same as proof of an intentional starvation policy. Israel has facilitated hundreds of thousands of tonnes of humanitarian aid into Gaza via multiple crossings and coordination mechanisms, even while fighting an armed group that embeds itself within civilian infrastructure.
Labour’s capitulation this week- raising the Agricultural Property Relief threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million after fourteen months of pressure – reveals the weakness of defending arbitrary numbers rather than principles.
This should matter to Liberal Democrats. We’ve opposed Labour’s reforms without offering an alternative. “Scrap the tax” isn’t liberal – it’s opposing for opposition’s sake. We’re ceding ground to Labour’s incoherent incrementalism and Conservative privilege defence.
Labour doesn’t know what problem they’re solving. The threshold they inherited was unlimited. They proposed £1 million. Now it’s £2.5 million. They claim to protect “ordinary family farms” while targeting “the wealthy” – but can’t explain why the right number changed by 150%.
This creates space for Liberal Democrats to articulate principled reform. Not “tax more” or “tax less,” but “tax the right things for the right reasons.”
The real conflict isn’t “protect farmers versus raise revenue.” It’s tax dodgers versus working farmers.
Current Agricultural Property Relief gives 100% inheritance tax exemption to all agricultural land – whether farmed or held as a tax shelter. Wealthy investors buy farmland to save 40% on inheritance tax, inflating land prices and locking out genuine farmers.
A liberal approach distinguishes between productive farming and passive wealth. Tie relief to behaviour (actual farming), not asset class (land ownership). The mechanism: link inheritance tax relief to the percentage of income from farming. Work the land, pay nothing. Use it as a tax shelter, pay tax.
This protects working farmers better than Labour’s threshold – someone earning their living from agriculture pays nothing regardless of land value. And it removes the tax shelter incentive driving unaffordable land prices.
Late last week, council leaders and directly elected mayors in 62 affected council areas received an unexpected letter from Local Government Minister Alison McGovern. The contents of that letter were nothing short of extraordinary: an offer to cancel the upcoming local elections in their areas — if they so choose.
This sudden and unprecedented proposal carries a very clear and troubling message. Labour and the Conservatives have suffered significant losses to Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats throughout this year. Both major parties are now deeply concerned about the prospect of further defeats in May. Let us not forget that in …
Our campaigning for peace and reconciliation has always rested on respect for the rule of law, a determination to uncover the truth, and a refusal to tolerate ideologies that promote hatred, war and terrorism. The fragile ceasefire in Gaza must not distract us from prosecuting war crimes thoroughly or from accelerating progress toward a two-state solution.
I usually avoid conflating the Israel–Palestine conflict with broader issues around Islamophobia and antisemitism, but recent events compel me to speak plainly. In the wake of the appalling atrocity in Sydney, it is right to express solidarity with the victims and their families. Those who stand for peace must also stand with the Jewish community, oppose antisemitism, and confront the hate-filled ideologies that fuel terrorism.
Visiting Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories earlier this year made clear both the urgent need for peace and the fact that not everyone is working toward it. Eight weeks into the fragile Gaza ceasefire, international attention is already drawing a veil over war crimes as it focuses on peace, governance, and reconstruction. For the Netanyahu government and some western allies, talk of the future can become a rhetorical device to deflect scrutiny of past and ongoing atrocities and to avoid calls for justice.
In Parliament, ministers have used the ceasefire to present the UK as a key peacebuilder. Yet, as highlighted in Peter Oborne’s recent book, serious concerns remain about the extent of UK involvement in Israel’s policy of retribution, genocide and starvation of its people and consequent destruction of Gaza, including (but not only) through the supply of arms, intelligence, and other forms of military aid.
In September 2024 the government partially suspended arms sales to Israel, revoking roughly 30 of 350 relevant licences. That limited action left significant loopholes, notably an exemption for exports to the global F-35 programme, despite evidence the jets have bombed civilians in Gaza.
Beyond the F-35 carve-out, UK military goods continued to flow to Israel in worrying quantities. Analysis by Channel 4 FactCheck shows that in June 2025 UK munitions worth about £400,000 entered Israel— the highest monthly figure since records began three years ago. Ministers note the data does not distinguish live munitions from training equipment, but why would we supply any military material to an army accused of genocide? Regardless, the UK and Israeli governments refuse to disclose the nature of the shipments, making proper scrutiny impossible.
We should publicly blame the Conservative Party for its role in ousting Tim Davie as the BBC’s Director-General, and for President Donald Trump’s $10bn lawsuit. The Party has insufficient grounds for `looking the other way’.
Our Party Leader Ed Davey’s `Guardian’ article of 10 November was superb.
His demand that Sir Robbie Gibb resign from the BBC Board was well focused. Even after Gibb had been exposed to many people who didn’t realise his power within the BBC, shining the spotlight on him was right.
I have been monitoring Gibb for the last couple of years, after my attention had been drawn to the harm he was causing as a `grey eminence’ inside the BBC who had accumulated huge power.
Our Party Leader was able, in his article, to strike a powerful blow for BBC independence (which many voters believe in as passionately as we do).
Lib Dem Shadow Culture Secretary Anna Sabine MP echoed this perfectly, as reported in the Guardian by Media Editor Michael Savage published on or around the next day.
Now we can teach the Conservative Party a bigger lesson while striking another powerful blow ourselves for the independence of BBC journalists.
The thin fence that they have ducked behind consists of the fact that, technically, the Director-General is appointed by the Executive, consisting of BBC Board Members.
How then can the Conservative Party still be collectively blamed for the debacle which led to Tim Davie’s resignation as Director-General on 9 November whose resignation, alongside Deborah Furness’s, was seen as `cauterising the wound’?
The three figures most clearly involved in the conflagration which led to this were all Conservatives. The Party had so engineered the set-up within the BBC that it was decided that only a Conservative should be Director-General.
We often say we care about lived experience, and that is true. We talk clearly about housing, childcare and benefits. In some areas, we have led the way with strong examples and practical policies. Liberal Democrat councils are building new council homes. We pushed to end the two-child benefit cap. In government, we raised the personal tax allowance, the last significant rise before it was frozen.
But when it comes to the economy, our message still stops short of what many people want to hear. And this hurts us when campaigning, especially against the Greens and Reform who are prepared to shout out that the system is broken.
The problem is not that voters lack detail. It is that mainstream politics often lacks honesty, and sometimes it lacks listening.
Politicians talk about growth, markets, interest rates and public finances. These things matter. But, too often, we talk about them as if they exist in a separate world from everyday life. For many people, especially those on low and modest incomes, the economy is not a forecast or a chart. It is whether they have enough money to make choices. That’s why I have previously called for the OBR to publish an analysis of the impact of the Budget on poor people.
We need radical honesty. And that starts by putting on the big ears.
That means listening properly to what people are telling us, even when it makes us uncomfortable. Especially when it makes us uncomfortable.
On the doorstep, many people now lean towards Reform. Too often, the political response is to assume bad motives. To hear racism where there may instead be frustration, insecurity or anger at a system that feels stacked against them. That instinct is not just unfair. It is politically lazy.
This week, there were five principal council by-elections. All of this week’s contests were in England, stretching from Blackpool, where the Christmas season is marked by the glow of the famous Illuminations, down to the Cornish coast at Newquay, and across to the eastern edge of the country at Lowestoft.
We start on the south bank of the River Ribble in Penwortham. We held this seat, pushed our vote share up and left Reform a long way behind. With Preston just over the bridge, and with us as the official opposition there, this is an area where visible local work still cuts through, and the result made that clear. Congratulations are due to Councillor Clare Burton‑Johnson and the local team for keeping the seat firmly in our hands.
South Ribble Borough Council, Broad Oak
Liberal Democrats (Clare Burton‑Johnston): 810 (65.9%, +0.4)
Reform UK: 263 (21.4%, new)
Conservative: 95 (7.7%, -9.5)
Labour: 62 (5.0%, -12.2)
Liberal Democrats HOLD
Turnout: 35.29%
Once again, we end a year with more Liberal Democrat councillors than at the start, with more Lib Dem council leaders than at the start and with a greater spread of Lib Dem candidates across the country outside target wards. Both in the areas where we can most immediately win, and across the country more broadly in terms of candidates, canvassing and delivery, we’ve taken big steps forward.
We have now made net gains in the May rounds of local elections seven times in a row, the best winning streak in our party’s history, and we’re in sight of even beating the benchmark set during the heyday of the SDP/Liberal Alliance.
Our continued progress in local council by-elections since May means we are the only party other than Reform posting significant gains (and it’s worth noting that the Greens are pretty much only treading water, even after Zack Polanski’s election).
Many people across the country, volunteers and staff, deserve the thanks and praise for those achievements. Last time I talked about the progress in County Durham and what the whole party can learn from it. This time, it is worth calling out the success in Devon where our recent by-election gain in Seaton makes it 13 (!) by-elections won this year in the county – as well as making gains and becoming the largest party in the May county council elections. Most impressive.
Barring any last-minute crisis, the thirty-seventh Federal Board meeting I chaired a couple of weeks back was the last in my time as Federal Party President, with Josh Babarinde taking over from 1st January.
So a huge thanks to all the staff and colleagues on the Board who worked so hard to make a success of our meetings, and the Board’s work between meetings too. A particular thanks to my Vice Chairs during this time – initially Elaine Bagshaw and Jeremy Hargreaves, and then Jeremy along with Jenni Lang and Amna Ahmed.
The very best wishes too to the new Board and to Josh.
Studying abroad, ability to learn another language, facing quite a few challenges, trying to fit into a new cultural environment, enhancing my identity and appreciating my own heritage, the list is long and it is hard to put it into words, I know that I have benefited hugely from being able to study in Croatia and Italy.
Although I am often very critical of the Labour Government, I am actually pleased that they are looking into re-establishing the Erasmus+ scheme. I strongly disagree with quite a few opposition politicians e.g. Priti Patel, who calls it a “Brexit betrayal”.
Let just remind ourselves that before the EU Referendum, in 2018-19, the last year the scheme operated here, 18,300 British students studied in the EU, while 30,000 EU students came to the UK.
Interestingly, in 2024, over 65,000 people travelled to Poland for the Erasmus+ program. This figure primarily represents incoming students, but the Erasmus+ program in Poland in 2024 also included other types of beneficiaries such as learners, professors, teachers, trainers, youth workers, and young people. Approximately 15,000 Polish students leave the country every year for their studies abroad through the program. In March 2025, when the former Mayor of Welwyn Hatfield Frank Marsh and I visited Sycow, we were impressed not only with students’ ability to speak English, but also with school(s) willingness to cooperate with other educational institutions across Europe.
Is there a cost attached to this programme, if it goes ahead? Yes. The UK will pay £570 million for the 2027/28 academic year to re-join the scheme, a figure the government states is a 30% discount on the default price for non-EU states. Is it worth it, I wonder given all the other financial pressures? Many would argue, rightly, that the UK and Europe have much bigger problems than “trivial and irrelevant” learning programme.
There are moments when Parliament must intervene not because it is politically convenient, but because failure to act would be morally indefensible. This is one of those moments.
Lawyers representing several Palestine Action linked prisoners have now warned that their clients may die without urgent ministerial intervention. Some have been on hunger strike for more than 40 days. Medical collapse, loss of consciousness, and dangerous blood test results have already been reported. These are not speculative concerns. They are immediate, time sensitive risks.
The Liberal Democrats exist to hold government to account when power is exercised without humanity or scrutiny. That responsibility now falls squarely on our Parliamentary team. The government has attempted to blur this issue by framing it as a continuation of the proscription debate. It is NOT!
Whatever view one takes of Palestine Action and whatever view one takes of the government’s decision to bundle organisations into a single proscription order, none of that justifies allowing people to deteriorate to the point of death in state custody.
These individuals are on remand. They have not been convicted. The government has a non-negotiable duty of care. Refusing to meet legal representatives while credible warnings of impending death are being made is not a neutral administrative choice. It is a failure of ministerial responsibility.
This is precisely the type of situation where the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary team must act decisively and visibly.
These actions should include:
The Liberal Democrats should not wait for tragedy before acting.
This phrase, or variants of it, has a long history and invokes different meaning to different people. We all need to realise what we may mean by it is not what those who hear it understand by it.
The roots of this phrase or slogan seem to be in the time of the British Mandate rule in Palestine, and it comes from the Revisionist (i.e. right wing) Zionism movement led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the movement that also produced the Jewish Terrorist groups, Irgun and Lehi, and the ideology of what is now Likud led by Binyamin Netanyahu. It was the dream of this branch of Zionism to have a Jewish State that reached from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, even beyond.
Later (the exact chronology is disputed) by the 1970’s, the phrase was adopted by the Palestinian Nationalist movement to call for a Palestinian State excluding Isreal and, by implication, most (if not all) Jews from that land.
In modern times the phrase is linked to the pro-Palestinian movement in the West with the second line of “Palestine will be free.” While many who chant the slogan may not mean that this implies the eradication of Israel, many in Jews, both in Israel and those in the Diaspora, hear that implication in those words and fear that it will be accompanied by a mass eradication of Jews between the Mediterranean to the Jordan, just as when the original slogan was first coined, the Arabs who lived in Palestine feared a Jewish state would mean their expulsion or eradication.
Given this mixed history, it is no wonder that the phrase stirs different emotions in people depending on which side of the Palestine/Israel conflict they are. However, if we want to help both Palestinians & Israelis address the issues that divide them, help the find a way to allow both to live in peace, share that land they both love and call their homeland and allow the children of both grow up free from the threat of more wars & violence, we need to think before we repeat this phrase either by itself or with a second line.
The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
I’m sure everyone knows this preamble by now, emblazoned on the back of our membership cards. I want to focus on the concept of liberty and how it doesn’t apply to carers.
My perspective on liberty encompasses the relationship between individuals and the state.
Society cannot function …