Michael Kilpatrick

Devolution – whither localism? Part 2

By Michael Kilpatrick | Fri 21st February 2025 - 12:25 pm

The government’s White Paper on devolution within England proposes unitary local authorities with a minimum population of 500,000, as discussed in part one of this article. The other significant structural proposal is for Mayoral Strategic Authorities (or Combined Authorities) to be rolled out across all of England over time. The Paper suggests a minimum population of 1.5 million for MSAs where practicable.

This proposal is a dog’s dinner at many levels. Where to begin? Nationally, we will continue to see Greater London as a single authority of nearly 10 million people whilst most of non-metropolitan England will likely see a multitude of smaller MSAs, perpetuating the imbalance set about by the abandonment of regionalisation plans in 2004, a few years after the creation of the Greater London Authority.

Labour and Conservatives aren’t interested in decentralisation, only faux-devolution and obfuscation of accountability. Mayors will operate on tax precepts that are miniscule compared to their grants from Westminster. The White Paper is full of nonsense jargon such as “Integrated Settlements”, “local growth allocations” and “consolidated funding pots”. This is not a recipe for good democratic government.

Liberal Democrat policy, on the other hand, is empowering, rational, far-reaching and forward-looking. We call for powerful regions with parliamentary government: proper, pluralistic democracy with full accountability. Legislative decentralisation will be accompanied by fiscal decentralisation: taxation will move away from Westminster and directly to the regions. That is real devolution.

Our call for regionalisation of England is tied to our policy for a federal UK because the two issues are somewhat interdependent. Similarly, the structure of local government is tied somewhat to the nature of the regions or sub-regions that contain them. Both large-scale regional government and unitary local councils are good ideas in their own right, but only if done properly. Sadly, the current government are implementing neither well.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 3 Comments
Advert
Kevin Langford

We should be spending 4% of GDP on defence

By Kevin Langford | Fri 21st February 2025 - 9:09 am

As Liberal Democrats our first task is to keep our society as fair, free and open as we can.

This society is threatened by a more aggressive Russia and a less reliable USA. This threat has to be right at the top of our thinking. The external environment has changed a lot and will require us to spend more on defence.

Determining how much more should be based on what it will cost to meet the threats we face.  It shouldn’t be based on what Rachel Reeves thinks we can afford in order to balance the books, or on what we spend now plus a little bit, or on what Donald Trump tells us. We need to defend the country, rather than make a spreadsheet add up.

The currency for the debate has been defence spend as a % of GDP. This isn’t a good way of working out what we need, but is a helpful shorthand for the debate. In 2024 this was 2.3%, and our spring conference motion on The UK’s Response to Trump urges the government to set a timetable to get this to 2.5% – a task the government is already committed to. Kemi Badenoch said this week that she would love to be able to get to 3% but that the party couldn’t ‘make the numbers work’ – the spreadsheet again. Reform set a target of 3% within 6 years in their 2024 election manifesto.

None of this sounds enough. There is ample evidence that the current defence budget is not sufficient even to support yesterday’s needs. The threat has increased and the support from across the Atlantic is decreasing. When we last faced an aggressive Russia in the 70’s and 80’s, we were spending just over 4% of GDP on defence. And that was with a supportive USA.  It is hard to see why the requirement would be less than this now.

This is a substantial increase – around £45bn a year. But it is likely to be the price of freedom.  After allowing for inflation, GDP per head today is roughly twice what it was in 1980, and we were able to afford this level of spend then.  There is pressure on public finances but we cannot let this stop us having the right conversation and making the right choices.

Supply chain and other constraints stop an immediate increase to this level of spend. But lead times are long and we need to commit to a plan quickly (and pray for breathing space in the meantime).

Somebody needs to call this out. The government has hemmed itself in to a narrative that is all about balancing the books. The Tories aren’t stepping up to the plate; they are still a shower.  And Reform is in hock to Trump and inconsistent on Putin.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 33 Comments

A North Atlantic Union: A bold vision for the future

By Daniel J Scarborough | Thu 20th February 2025 - 5:43 pm

The need for a new alliance

As the world faces increasing geopolitical uncertainty, the nations of the North Atlantic find themselves at a crossroads. With Donald Trump’s isolationist rhetoric and ambitions to bring Canada and Greenland into the US sphere, and with post-Brexit Britain seeking new global partnerships, a strategic realignment is necessary.

A North Atlantic Union (NAU)—consisting of Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and the UK (with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland having their own independent voice within the union)—could offer an economic and security framework tailored to the unique needs of these nations. By pooling resources and influence, the NAU could become a major global power, securing economic prosperity, geopolitical stability, and sustainable resource management.

The economic and strategic power of the NAU

While individually, each country plays a significant role in global affairs, together they would form an economic and strategic powerhouse:

  • Combined GDP: The total GDP of the NAU would exceed $6 trillion, making it one of the top five economic blocs in the world—larger than India and rivaling Japan and Germany.
  • Population: With around 100 million people, the NAU would have a significant consumer base, labour force, and influence in international markets.
  • Natural Resources: The union would control one of the largest reserves of oil, gas, fish, and renewable energy sources (hydropower, geothermal, and offshore wind).
  • Strategic Location: The NAU would dominate the Arctic trade routes and play a key role in global maritime logistics.

This economic and demographic strength would give the NAU a powerful voice in global institutions like the UN, WTO, and G7, and a stronger negotiating position in trade agreements with the EU, US, and China.

Pros for each member country

United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland)

  • Stronger Economic Ties – Brexit has left the UK seeking new economic partners. The NAU would create a common market, improving trade and investment.
  • Increased Global Influence – By leading the creation of a powerful bloc, the UK would regain diplomatic relevance after Brexit.
  • Better Security and Arctic Access – The UK has limited Arctic presence, but through the NAU, it would gain influence in the region’s energy and trade policies.
  • Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Interests – Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would benefit from a closer relationship with Norway and Canada, having their own independent voice at the NAU table, balancing their ties between the UK and the EU.

Canada

  • A Stronger Alternative to US Dependence – Canada’s economy is heavily tied to the US. The NAU would diversify trade, reducing dependence on America.
  • Resource and Energy Development – Joint infrastructure projects would open new markets for Canada’s oil, natural gas, and critical minerals.
  • Arctic Leadership – Canada, along with Norway and Greenland, would become a key player in Arctic governance.
  • Stronger Immigration Partnerships – Canada’s immigration-driven economy would benefit from skilled labour from the UK and Norway.

Norway

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 5 Comments
Michael Kilpatrick

Devolution – whither localism? Part 1

By Michael Kilpatrick | Thu 20th February 2025 - 12:41 pm

I have always favoured unitary authorities – provided they are the right unitaries, of course. It is disheartening, though unsurprising, to see Labour reforming English local government in a way that undermines a structure I think should be embraced. Equally disheartening, for me, is the response from some Liberal Democrats.

Alongside the call for unitary authorities, the government’s devolution proposals also include Mayoral Strategic Authorities (or Combined Authorities), ultimately encompassing all of England, which I will cover in more detail in part two of this article.

Replacing two-tier local government with unitaries streamlines governance. Why anyone would want Highways and Planning separated across tiers of local government to begin with? Of course, whilst some powers will move downwards from abolished county councils, others shift upwards from the former districts to the unitaries, which may be larger in order to function with increased powers. This is a trade-off, but one upside to larger unitaries is to allow room for greater power at the lowest level – the Parish Councils – and aligns with Liberal Democrat policy on localism.

When the government’s White Paper declared that unitaries should in most case serve at least 500,000 people, there was a collective intake of breath from many.

Here in South Cambs, opinion is divided. Some who favour unitaries support a combined South Cambs District plus City of Cambridge (population c.300,000), balancing rural and urban interests, whereas others would add East Cambs (pop. 90,000) to that too. For me, it is important any solution works within the context of the wider area: no cherry-picking of geography or first-come-first-served libertarianism. Either way, I have yet to encounter anyone who wants only a single authority for the whole of Cambridgeshire.

With that in mind, I was saddened to read that, recently, five Oxfordshire Liberal Democrat MPs wrote to Angela Rayner, asking for a single unitary council for Oxfordshire and for a Combined Authority for Bucks, Oxon and Berks:

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 15 Comments
Ken Westmoreland

“I said not one word of that”. When AI puts words in our mouths

By Ken Westmoreland | Thu 20th February 2025 - 9:48 am

Last December, the Conservative peer Charlotte Owen introduced the Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill, which has made its way through the House of Lords. This followed the 2023 Online Safety Act, which not only made it a criminal offence to share, or threaten to share, images or videos of someone in an intimate state, but also included digitally manipulated ones, known as deepfakes, appearing to show someone in such a state.

I am entirely on her side, but I would also like to see it cover content of a non-sexual nature, audio as well as video, which can cause similar humiliation and distress to those targeted, male as well as female. While AI cannot literally put words in our mouths, it can do so virtually or digitally, cloning our voices as well as our faces.

Back in 2023, Stephen Fry asked his audience to compare his voice, from a clip of a documentary about the Dutch resistance he narrated in English, with an AI-generated version of it, only to tell them that was the AI: ‘I said not one word of that.’ His agents, unaware such technology existed, went ballistic, but he knew there was more to come: ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet.’

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, however, would have seen quite enough, after hearing a deepfake audio sounding like him early last year saying inflammatory things about Remembrance weekend, calling for pro-Palestinian marches and declaring that the Metropolitan Police did what he told them to do. It certainly sounded like him, with the London accent, complete with glottal stop; this was a part of his identity having been stolen and subverted, which understandably angered him.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment
Advert
Caron Lindsay

Alistair Carmichael on Iain Dale’s All Talk on 75th anniversary of Jo Grimond’s election

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 19th February 2025 - 3:13 pm

Every week I read Iain Dale’s weekly newsletter. Before you rush to judgement, there is always a picture of some very cute dogs at the end even if I often disagree with the political stuff. I often read people whose views are not the same as mine, especially if they are interesting as Iain usually is. When I was growing up, I used to read my Dad’s Telegraph every day. It horrified me so much that it made me a social liberal with a healthy respect for a strong public sector that knocks down the barriers of poverty and inequality  that hold people back.

It was on its pages that I remember reading an article from Jo Grimond lamenting the move to an increasingly litigious society. For me that was very prescient as we so often now see the rich and powerful beat progressive forces without such deep pockets into submission in the courts.

Anyway, going back to Iain’s newsletter, a few weeks ago, he mentioned he was recording an All Talk podcast with Alistair Carmichael. I’ve been waiting to listen to it ever since.

It’s finally come out today, as this week is the 75th anniversary of Jo Grimond’s first election as MP for Orkney and Shetland.  Jo had first fought the seat in 1945 and narrowly lost but was successful five years later.  He held it for 33 years, retiring in the 1983 election. He was succeeded by Jim Wallace who then stood down at the 2001 election as he had been elected as MSP for Orkney in 1999. Alistair tells the story of how he was selected for he seat. He also talks about the coalition years.

Continue reading »
Posted in News and Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 2 Comments
Paul Hindley

In the shadow of Trump, Britain requires a seismic shift in tax and spend

By Paul Hindley | Wed 19th February 2025 - 10:55 am

Harold Wilson once famously said that “a week is a long time in politics”. Well, the last week feels like an eternity in international politics. Last week, NATO member states received a scolding from the new US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who warned them not to treat Uncle Sam like “Uncle Sucker” on defence spending. While at the weekend’s Munich Security Conference, US Vice President, JD Vance spouted the ridiculous claim that immigration and tackling hate speech, such as through having safe zones around abortion clinics, were a bigger threat to European democracies than Russia or China.

The wavering of Trump’s America on its security commitments to Europe poses immense questions for Britain. Keir Starmer was right to commit British peacekeepers to Ukraine as part of an international mission. While Ed Davey was right to call for Labour to reverse the Conservatives’ 10,000 troop cutback to the British Army. It is clear that defence spending will have to increase considerably beyond NATO’s 2% of GDP requirement, even beyond the new government target of 2.5%.

But defence is not the only area that requires a considerable increase in public spending. Britain needs new and improved hospitals; the social care crisis needs to be addressed; several local councils are facing bankruptcy; welfare cuts, such as the two-child benefit cap, need to be reversed; and climate change needs to be tackled. All of this heralds a seismic shift in how we as a country facilitate tax and spend policies. In a nutshell, public spending in Britain will need to increase across the board.

One option to increase state spending is by making cutbacks elsewhere. However, after years of austerity, this is unwise. But what could we cut anyway? We cannot cut NHS spending or defence spending. Some schools and prisons are already crumbling, so education and justice are off the table. The welfare, local government and international aid budgets have already experienced deep cutbacks. Finally, we cannot cut back on green policies when we are facing a climate crisis.

What about funding the additional spending through borrowing? Borrowing can offer part of the answer. We should be borrowing to invest in the construction of vital infrastructure projects. Borrowing should also be used in the short term to immediately address the NHS crisis. While some EU nations, such as Spain, are calling for EU-wide borrowing to fund Europe’s necessary defence spending increases. However, we should be cautious. Borrowing is not a silver bullet. We have to be aware of the economic risks of relying too much on borrowing and the potential for a future debt crisis.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 30 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Lib Dems comfortably hold seat in Brent

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 19th February 2025 - 8:49 am

In one of those rare-ish Tuesday by-elections, the Lib Dems confortably held on to a Council seat in Brent yesterday.

Cllr Charlie Clinton and team absolutely smashed it. Here’s the result:

Charlie Clinton 1743

               Lab – 827

               Con – 740

               Reform – 286

Well done to the Brent Lib Dems.

The by-election was caused by the resignation of Cllr Anton Georgiou. He set out his reasons in a post for the Wembley Matters blog:

Being the Liberal Democrat Councillor for Alperton has truly been the honour of my life. I became a campaigner locally in 2013 when I was 18 years old and have spent over a decade doing what I can to better the borough I love so much. For the last 5 years I have had the privilege to represent residents in Alperton on the Council – initially as the only elected Liberal Democrat and for the past two and a half years as the Leader of our small, but effective opposition group.

It has been quite a ride, with many highs and some lows, but I look back at this time with one overriding feeling – gratitude, for having been given the opportunity to do the role.

It is with sadness and a heavy heart that I have decided to resign from Brent Council. This is a personal decision, that has not been easy and in part due to a very traumatic experience that I have previously spoken out about.

He talked about the failures of Brent’s Labour Council.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged , , and | 3 Comments
Paul Walter

Dr Adam Kay and the vital importance of the mental health of NHS staff

By Paul Walter | Tue 18th February 2025 - 7:24 pm

On Valentine’s Day, I went with my Valentine, to see Adam Kay:Undoctored at Newbury’s Corn Exchange.

I have a soft spot for Dr Adam.

His book “This is going to hurt” was a great read – hilarious but in a dark way, and in a way that made a very strong point about the NHS.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 1 Comment
Lord William Wallace

Tax increases needed to counter Trump’s full-frontal assault on liberal democracy

By Lord William Wallace | Tue 18th February 2025 - 1:00 pm

So now we have no alternative.  We have to raise taxes.

Trump’s appeasement of Russia threatens European security.  But it also poses the full extent to which the Conservative government ran down Britain’s public capabilities – and, let’s be honest, the Coalition also underfunded our public services and infrastructure, and so did the Labour government (and the Thatcher government) before that.  Since the election we have been learning about the appalling state of our hospital and prison estates.  We already knew about the desperate shortage of social housing, the poor condition of many of our roads and the backlog of investment in public transport.  Inadequate pay for teachers in state schools means that we’re losing them faster than replacements are being trained.  Local authorities are struggling to avoid bankruptcy.  And alongside all that, our armed forces are smaller and weaker than they have been in our lifetimes, and the US Administration has just given us notice that it won’t defend Europe if Russia extends its aggression against Ukraine into hybrid or conventional attacks on the rest of Europe.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Peter Wrigley

We need to stand up for our Liberal values on immigrants

By Peter Wrigley | Tue 18th February 2025 - 11:33 am

After a week in in which both Conservatives and Labour have competed to outbid each other in inhumanity and sheer nastiness towards immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, the Liberal Democrat policy makes heartening reading.  Here are a few extracts from our 2024 Manifesto:

The UK has a proud history of welcoming newcomers – whether people seeking to build their lives here, or refugees fleeing war and persecution. People from all over the world have greatly enriched our economy, our culture and our communities.

Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair, effective immigration system that treats everyone with dignity and respect.

We will:

  • End the Conservatives’ Hostile Environment and invest instead in officers, training and technology to tackle smuggling, trafficking and modern slavery.
  • Lift the ban on asylum seekers working if they have been waiting for a decision for more than three months, enabling them to support themselves, integrate in their communities and contribute to the economy.
  • Exempt NHS and care staff from the £1,000-a-year Immigration Skills Charge, and reverse the Conservatives’ ban on care workers bringing partners and children.
  • Reduce the fee for registering a child as a British citizen from £1,214 to the cost of administration.
  • Overhaul the Immigration Rules to make them simpler, clearer and fairer, and ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny of future changes.
Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 17 Comments
Hannah Kitching

Giving more support to our regions

By Hannah Kitching | Tue 18th February 2025 - 9:06 am

I wear many hats in our party. From being a councillor in Barnsley through to former Westminster candidate in both Yorkshire and the North West, and now, Regional Chair in Yorkshire and the Humber and the new Vice Chair of the English Party.

In every role I have taken up, I have done so to highlight problems and find solutions. As a Regional Chair, it is clear to me we are long-overdue change.

It is time our English regions were better supported to deliver their vital responsibilities.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 3 Comments
Tom Reeve

Like a broken clock, even JD Vance can be right sometimes 

By Tom Reeve | Mon 17th February 2025 - 12:55 pm

JD Vance’s critique of the liberal consensus at the Munich Security Conference touches on an uncomfortable truth: the liberal project, while achieving peace and prosperity on a global scale, has left many working-class communities behind. Economically, politically, and culturally, these groups feel abandoned, leading to resentment and distrust of the ideals that have propelled progress.

For decades, the liberal elite has prioritised building a brave new world, but in doing so, it neglected to build consensus with the people it sought to serve. Programmes designed to alleviate poverty or reduce inequality often came across as top-down mandates rather than collaborative efforts. While well-intentioned, they failed to engage the communities most affected, leaving many with the impression that they were receiving “handouts” rather than opportunities for self-sufficiency.

Many of the measures introduced – whether to address poverty, climate change, or inequality – stemmed from noble intentions and represented the best instincts of humanity. Yet they were often implemented without meaningful consultation with the electorate. 

The liberal tradition, at its best, is about empowerment. It is about giving individuals the tools to build their own futures, fostering both economic and personal dignity. Yet many of the programmes introduced in the name of progress – however noble – were perceived as undermining the very dignity they sought to preserve. 

For instance, work is more than a pay cheque; it is a source of status, respect, and identity. Lack of meaningful work has left people feeling invisible and devalued. And most people, in my experience, support diversity and equality, but the programmes to support these goals rings hollow for the the people who feel sidelined in their own community. 

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 11 Comments
NewsHound

Three big moments for senior Lib Dems in the media

By NewsHound | Mon 17th February 2025 - 11:30 am

The past week has seen three big appearances from Lib Dems. You used to go weeks without anyone so it’s great to see that we have a bigger profile and that there are multiple opportunities for us to differentiate ourselves from everyone else.

Last Thursday, Lisa Smart, our Home Affairs spokesperson, made her Question Time debut and did very well taking questions on Rachel Reeves cv “of course it’s daft to embellish a cv but performance matters” also pointing out that Labour inherited a “steaming pile” from the Conservatives, immigration and Ukraine. Here she is on Trump:

On Friday, Christine Jardine was on Any Questions. Talking about Rachel Reeves, she said that the one thing she wished she could embellish was her record as Chancellor which got a round of applause from the audience.  On Trump, she pointed out the irony that he was saying that European defence was down to Europe, but then rode roughshod over Europe as regards Ukraine.

Listen here.

Finally, Ed was on Peston last week. Here he is talking about Trump:

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged , , , , and | 9 Comments
Vince Cable

Vince Cable writes…Standing up to Trump

By Vince Cable | Mon 17th February 2025 - 7:29 am

I know from experience that leading the Liberal Democrats is a frustrating job; marginalised in the media and patronised by the two traditional parties. But periodically we hit on a message which resonates in the country, as with Charles Kennedy’s opposition to the Iraq war.  Ed Davey may have found another: ‘Stand up to Trump’. 

These are early days in the second Trump administration, but a political, economic and cultural revolution is under way. The MAGA movement is also much bigger than its capricious, unpredictable leader. Trump’s apostles like JD Vance and Hegseth are ideologically extreme but also articulate, smart and superficially plausible. And they regard Britain with contempt: our secular and liberal values; our diverse society; our democratically elected government. We need to understand that the sentimental nonsense about the ‘special relationship’ is over. We are under attack.

I have some sympathy for our government. Starmer is being understandably cautious recognising that there is much uncertainty and danger.  The resulting passivity has however created a leadership vacuum. The Tories and Reform vie to be mini-Trumps. They are also skirting around the edge of treacherous collusion with people who openly declare their wish to overthrow our legitimate government. Nor will leadership come from the lazy anti-Americanism of the far left which sees Trump as merely a cruder spokesman for American imperialism than Clinton or Obama.

Step forward the leader of the Liberal Democrats to provide a focal point for resistance. The fact that Ed Davey has attracted the abuse of Trump’s outrider, Elon Musk, is to his credit. Being described as a ‘snivelling cretin’ tells us less about him than about the deranged people who insult him: the MAGA folk who think that Tommy Robinson is the authentic voice of the British working class; that London is a Muslim city; and that ‘free speech’ has been outlawed in the UK. The irony of using ‘freedom’ as a dividing line with Britain appears to be completely lost on people whose idea of personal freedom is ownership of offensive automatic weapons, facilitating mass killings. As for the decadence and decay of Europe it pays to point out that, in Trump’s macho USA, male life expectancy is five years or so less than ours and less than in China or Ecuador.

But apart from firing verbal projectiles, what does ‘standing up to Trump’ look like?  Tariffs?  We will be dragged down like everyone else by a global trade war.  But in relation to Trump’s irrational obsession with bilateral trade balances, the UK is in the clear albeit with some minor quibbling about the statistics. Britain’s exports are, any event, skewed to services and other items which don’t carry tariffs. An exception is steel, and the remnants of this once great industry are set to take another beating. Outside the EU, Britain does not have the clout to retaliate, and, in any event, the Americans will point out that for British exporters to complain about tariffs is a bit rich since Britain unilaterally raised tariffs against itself when it left the EU customs union.

More reassuringly, the USA is no longer quite the power in world trade it once was, or Trump thinks it is.  The EU is the dominant power in trade in goods and services combined, China in goods. Though relatively declining, the US is still the world’s largest importer with around 15% of world imports narrowly ahead of the EU and China. It can damage its trade partners, as it clearly intends to do, but there is nothing to stop them trading more with each other. America, of course, runs big trade deficits.  It has the privilege of being able to consume disproportionately by issuing dollar IOUs (which may soon lose their appeal as a store of value). Trump’s particular genius has been an ability to translate this self-indulgence into victimhood. We have no reason to fuel this national self-pity.  We should ignore it; diversify away from the USA; re-build trading relationships with our European neighbours; and prioritise emerging markets including those that annoy the Americans as with China, Mexico and Vietnam. Hedging is the best response to uncertainty.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 34 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 16th February 2025 - 9:39 am

United States

It is becoming increasingly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and unfettered power is the American judicial system.

His spineless acolytes in the Republican Party control both houses of Congress and the geriatric Democratic Party appears to be sinking under a sea of Executive Orders.

The courts, however, have acted. So far they have ordered the administration to lift its funding freeze on USAID and the salaries of thousands of federal employees.

The question now is: What will Trump do? Legally, he should abide by the court’s ruling and—if he is determined to get his way—appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, where, he hopes, the 6-3 conservative majority will rule in his favour.

But that is not Trump’s way, and Supreme Court support is not a given.

The signs are that Trump will simply ignore the court rulings and either carry on and appeal or—even more likely—carry on and not bother to appeal. If he takes either approach Donald Trump will have created a major constitutional crisis.

The power of the judicial system relies on the two other branches of government respecting and accepting the court’s  judgements. It is called checks and balances and THE RULE OF LAW.

There is nothing in the US constitution which gives enforcement powers to the judiciary—except the legal principle of contempt of court.  If Donald Trump ignores court rulings then he can be held in contempt and detained or fined until such time as he “purges the contempt.”

This is not a criminal law. It is not a civil law. It is the only weapon that the courts have to enforce their judgements. It was used against Trump in 2022 when he was fined $10,000 a day for failing to provide subpoenaed documents in his fraud trial.

The same law could also be applied to Elon Musk and his DOGE team.

A person cannot be pardoned for contempt of court. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity does not apply to contempt of court. So, where is the brave judge willing to take on Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the MAGA  crowd?

Germany

As Germany’s federal election approaches the two front runners—the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Alternativ fur Deutschland (AfD) are battling for the young men’s vote.

Increasingly it is the 18-30-year-old men who are playing the kingmaker’s role in Western democracies. And they are swinging further and further to the right.

In the 2024 British general election, young men played a vital role in winning five parliamentary seats for Reform. 12.9 percent of men aged 18 to 30 voted Reform compared to just 5.9 percent of the women.

In the States it was disgruntled young men who dunnit for Trump. Sixty percent of the young male vote opted for Donald Trump, according to an Associated Press survey. Trump attracted only 20 percent of the women in the same age group.

Trump was especially popular with poorly educated young white men, but he also won half of the young male Latino vote and a third of the African-American young men.

In Germany the young male vote played a major role in the AfD winning 16 percent of the vote in the European elections and 31 percent of the vote in elections in Saxony and Brandenburg.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 13 Comments
The Voice

Christine Jardine: At the centre of the culture wars are people who just want to live their lives

By The Voice | Sat 15th February 2025 - 10:30 am

Official portrait of Christine Jardine @HouseofCommons/Roger HarrisChristine Jardine was described by Labour MP Nadia Whittome as having “long been ahead of many in this House when it comes to equalities issues, including being outspoken in support of the rights of sex workers”  a debate on LGBT History Month in Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Earlier, Christine had made a heartfelt speech which you can watch here. She looked back to the deeply homophobic and toxic atmosphere in the 1980s towards gay people and highlighted some of the injustices they had to deal with and how we are seeing the same tropes played out today.

Here is her speech in full:

It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I concur with everything she said about the work being done by the Women and Equalities Committee.

It is important to recognise where we stand in history, because when we talk about LGBTQ rights, women’s rights or racial equality in this place, we often talk about the journey that we have been on and what we have achieved. Yes, we have achieved a lot, but we face enormous challenges at this moment in our history. Our country’s LGBTQ community need to look at us today and know that we will stand up for them and that we will fight for their rights, including their right simply to be who they are.

But we have faced challenges before, and we have overcome them. I think of Scotland, particularly my home city of Glasgow, where I was brought up. In the 1970s, and when I was a student in the 1980s, it had unfortunately garnered for itself the unenviable reputation of being one of the worst places in Europe to grow up gay. Attitudes were somehow more polarised in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. In 1957, a poll showed that more than 80% of Scots did not want homosexuality to be decriminalised; the figure was 51% in England.

In preparing for this debate, I found an article in a 1982 student newspaper from the University of Liverpool, whose student union disaffiliated with the University of Glasgow because it refused to allow a gay society to form. According to the union president, that refusal was on the ground that the age of consent for homosexual sex was 21 and, given that most students were younger than 21, the union did not want to “give the impression that the Union in some way bestows an unofficial blessing on their activities… many members of the Gay Society are not interested in a constructive approach to changing the membership’s attitude…but using this as a ploy to gain momentum to destroy the character of the Union as we know it.”

We hear an echo of that language today, but imagine how young LGBT people must have felt hearing and reading it. That was the kind of attitude they faced on a daily basis.

And imagine if we had been able to tell them that, 40 years later, Glasgow would be in the top five places in Europe for LGBT people to visit and enjoy and that, despite those attitudes, a long, rich history has developed of the community across Scotland coming together to support each other. We have improved so much, as those figures show.

Edinburgh Befrienders, later known as the Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, opened in 1974 and was the UK’s first bespoke helpline for gay and lesbian people—beating Switchboard, which still exists, by just one day. Edinburgh was also home to Scotland’s first LGBT bookshop, Lavender Menace, and in 1995 welcomed 3,000 people to Scotland’s first Pride march. It is now huge, the event of the year, and I have been privileged to speak at it twice.

Of course, much of this change has been possible only because of public figures, including: former MPs such as Robin Cook, who equalised Scots law and English law on homosexuality; Val McDermid, whose 1987 novel “Report for Murder” featured Lindsay Gordon, Britain’s first fictional lesbian detective; and award-winning author Jackie Kay, the second woman and first lesbian to hold the post of Makar, Scotland’s national poet, and whose work has dealt with race, gender, transgender identities and her own sexuality. Thanks to such people and places, so many attitudes, laws and the understanding of LGBT+ people have changed for the better.

Continue reading »
Posted in News and Parliament | Tagged , , and | 5 Comments
Matthew Ma

ALDC’s by-election report – 13 February

By Matthew Ma | Sat 15th February 2025 - 7:55 am

There are 7 principal council by-elections held across England, Scotland, and Wales this week; with a combined of 3 Labour, 2 Lib Dem, 1 Conservative, and 1 Green Party defence. Seats changed hands left and right as only 2 out of 7 elections are successfully held by the respective parties. One of which is Lib Dem, who lost the other to Labour; and Labour, who lost their other seats to the Green Party and Reform. Meanwhile, the Tories lost their seat to the independents while gaining one from the Green Party. 

The headline win for the Lib Dems this week come from Stevenage BC, where Cllr Peter Wilkins in the Manor ward held the Lib Dem vote steady (more than majority!) while all other major parties’ vote collapse in the face of a new Reform candidate. Congratulations to Cllr Peter and the team for winning the seat!

Stevenage BC, Manor
Liberal Democrat (Peter Wilkins): 760 (55.6%, +0.1%)
Reform: 320 (23.4%, new)
Conservative: 139 (10.2%, -5.2%)
Labour: 101 (7.4%, -12.3%)
Green Party: 46 (3.4%, -6.0%)

In the other Lib Dem defence of the week. Marthos Christoforou managed to further grow the Lib Dem first preference votes in Kirkintilloch, North & Twechar of East Dunbartonshire Council, but still lost to Labour head-to-head in stage 7 of counting. This would have been an SNP seat if there was only one up for election in 2022: such is the quirk of the Scottish council elections. Well done and thank you to Marthos and the team for putting up a good fight.

East Dunbartonshire Council, Kirkintilloch East, North & Twechar (based on first preference votes, Labour elected at stage 7)
Labour: 958 (30.2%, +1.0%)
SNP: 726 (22.9%, -16.0%)
Liberal Democrat (Marthos Christoforou): 677 (21.3%, +2.6%)
Reform: 476 (15.0%, new)
Conservative: 131 (4.1%, -7.8%)
Green Party: 128 (4.0%, new)
Alba: 63 (2.0, new)
Sovereignty: 18 (0.6%, new)

One by-election held on Tuesday in Pembrokeshire CC also saw a great Lib Dem result, where Kaleb Jenkins managed to snatch over a quarter of the votes in Haverfordwest Prendergast and placing second despite no Lib Dem had stood in the previous election. The independents gained the seat from the Conservatives here. Thank you, Kaleb and the team, for putting the Lib Dems on the map in the ward, that’s how all our campaigns start!

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | Leave a comment
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: Ukraine – Europe Missed A Trick

By Tom Arms | Fri 14th February 2025 - 7:38 pm

Europe has missed a trick. Ukraine was primarily a European problem. Russia was threatening European security, and by extension, the NATO alliance as a whole. But to most Americans the war in Ukraine, as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia—“is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

But America coughed up billions. That is not to say that European countries—including the UK—have not dug deep. Since 2022 Europe has given slightly more than the US – $65.9 billion compared to $65 billion from Washington. Another $8.59 billion has come from non-European countries Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

But the Biden Administration was far and away the single biggest contributor propping up Ukraine. With Trump in the White House that prop is likely to be kicked away—possibly as soon as this weekend’s Munich Security Conference.

Europeans admit that their over-reliance on the American military umbrella has made them complacent about their security. Since the end of the Cold War defense budgets have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. Germany, for instance was in 1985 spending 2.87 percent of its GDP on defense. When Russia invaded Ukraine the figure had been cut by more than half to 1.33 percent.

Budget cuts meant cuts in troop numbers. 478,000 (1985 figure) in Germany to 183,000 in 2022. Britain went from 334,000 to 153,000 over the same period.

But more importantly was a drop in investment in defense industries.  Troop levels can be boosted relatively easily. But researching the latest weapons, building a factory and assembly line and starting production takes time. 1985 figures for European investment in defense industries are difficult to find, but since the invasion of Ukraine there is a clear recognition that it was not enough. In 2021 the figure was $222 billion and in 2024 it had jumped to $330 billion.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 41 Comments
Michal Siewniak

The real pandemic of today – loneliness

By Michal Siewniak | Thu 13th February 2025 - 5:32 pm

Overall, I am not too keen on TV. My children would often say that I am workaholic, I can’t sit still and I always have to be “on the go”. Any particular reasons why I don’t watch too much telly? Does it take too much of our time? Could it be better to simply, after a long day at work, to force ourselves to occupy our mind and intellect with a book or a short walk? I worry that TV as well as mobile phones take away too much of our own and family time.

Having said that, we all need at times a bit of “me” time, also in front of our screens. I love to watch football highlights, watch a game when possible, political bulletins and crime series. However, as I love traveling and I lived, apart from my native Poland, in Croatia, Italy and now the UK, I really enjoy watching geography programmes. There are plenty of them across all the main channels.

I have recently come across Ben Fogle’s: New Lives in the Wild. It is fascinating to see how people are able to adapt and live in some of the most remote locations across the globe. It is remarkable to see how they cope with isolation, and very little contact with “real civilisation”. I was struck by a comment from one of Ben’s guests, an Austrian priest, who is now living as a hermit in the Italian Alps. He said that he feels more connected with a very few of his neighbours than when he lived in a busy city. What a striking statement!

Because of work, for the last 3-4 years, I have been traveling a lot to London from Welwyn Garden City. Hundreds, thousands of people trying to get from A to B. The London underground has been my best friend for a while now. A typical passenger on the tube? Phone, IPad, rarely a book. Some people try to have a short nap before the next part of the daily challenge. Often, actually most of the time, there is no communication and no interaction between commuters. It might be incredibly sad that someone might be living in one of the most iconic cities on earth, surrounded by millions of people from every corner of the world and yet, feel so lonely. I am convinced that each person has most amazing and unique story to tell.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | 14 Comments
Mary Reid

Agenda for Spring Conference

By Mary Reid | Thu 13th February 2025 - 2:07 pm

Spring Conference will be in Harrogate from 21st to 23rd March.

You can now see the agenda here. Policy motions cover:

  • Science, Innovation and Technology
  • Free to be Who You Are
  • The UK’s Response to Trump
  • Animal Welfare in the Food System
  • Ending the Crisis: A Fair Deal for Children with SEND

Plus a Constitutional Amendment on Implementing the Lessons of the General Election Review.

That means it’s time to start thinking about amendments to motions – the deadline is 10th March.

There is still time to register for conference, either in person on online. You can register here.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged | 2 Comments

It’s time to practice what we preach

By Charles Dundas and Julian Tandy | Wed 12th February 2025 - 12:30 pm

Headshot of Julian TandyIt’s not often a motion comes along to Federal conference that is actually about true Federalism. Federalism is a concept synonymous with the Lib Dems. We campaign for it at a national level and we practice what we preach when it comes to the internal organisation of the party. Or do we? There’s a motion coming to Harrogate conference in March which addresses this for candidates – and we are delighted that it points towards a much more progressive and federal approach to how the party operates..

As those responsible for overseeing the approval and selection of Westminster candidates in our respective States – Scotland and Wales – we added our names to support the motion (F10) to implement the lessons of the General Election Review.

You can read the candidates motion here.

For us, this motion is about three key things:

Getting Federalism right for the three States

It gives the three States an equal seat at the table when it comes to setting Westminster candidate selection rules and procedures. Rather than Scotland and Wales being treated as the poor relations expected to follow wherever England goes, all three States will have parity in decision-making, reflecting the views of our respective State committees in Joint State meetings to collectively decide the way forward. This is exactly how Federalism should work – State parity and democratic accountability to members through conference of our processes and procedures.

Diversity and equality

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 16 Comments
John Grout

We need to talk about the government’s AI plans

By John Grout | Wed 12th February 2025 - 8:46 am

If you asked someone a few years ago which party formed a British government wanting to exempt AI firms from having to adhere to copyright laws  and joining the Trump government in refusing to sign an international declaration calling on AI to be, among other things, ethical, they would almost certainly have assumed it was a Conservative government, not a Labour one.

The reality is that that’s exactly what Keir Starmer’s Labour government is doing.

Both of these should be extremely concerning for us all, but for Liberal Democrats this should ring particular alarm bells.  The government seems intent to hand the majority of the value of the UK’s vital creative industries, estimated to be worth over £120 billion, to unaccountable US tech firms headed by the wealthiest men on the planet, with precious few safeguards for authors, artists, and creators.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 16 Comments
Lord William Wallace

William Wallace writes: Spending Cuts or Tax Increases? Can we avoid the choice?

By Lord William Wallace | Tue 11th February 2025 - 11:55 am

One of the oddest things about British and American politics is that it remains acceptable to politicians and right-wing commentators to call for cuts in overall taxation without specifying what cuts in spending programmes should accompany them.  After successive Republican Administrations in the USA that have cut taxes and then found it difficult to make comparable reductions in spending programmes, the Trump Administration is at least being ‘honest’ in publicly slashing major federal programmes – through dishonest in suggesting that tariffs will provide a generous new stream of revenue.  In the UK the Mail and the Telegraph, and the Conservative leadership, still attack every suggestion of higher taxation, as well as many proposals to squeeze current spending. 

The Labour Government boxed itself in before the election by promising not to increase the three largest sources of government revenue.  It over-emphasised the potential for returning to faster growth as a means of increasing revenue; and is therefore stuck with multiple crises in public services, while loading extra demands on Council tax in the hope that local Councils will share the blame. The impact of Trump on the global economy increases the obstacles to growth which we (and other countries) face.  Rachel Reeves is hinting at cuts, not only in welfare benefits but also in key public services and public investment.  So what should Liberal Democrats be saying if the government does delay infrastructure investment and squeeze key services?

Across the board, both the public investment needed to revive the UK economy and the public services which support our society are in acute crisis.  The Financial Times last week published a horrifying account of the physical state of some of the hospitals included in Boris Johnson’s unfunded rebuilding programme.  The UK spends much less on government support for research and development than many of its competitors.  The promised AI supercomputer (underfunded in Conservative treasury calculations) has been put on hold; financial support for Ph.D students in STEM subjects, crucial for future innovation, has been shrunk.  The state of Britain’s prisons, after years of under-investment and overcrowding, is appalling.  We have been promised an additional 6500 teachers for schools, but school budgets have not been increased enough to pay for the much-need pay increase for existing teachers, let alone to recruit more.  Similarly we have been promised more neighbourhood police and Community Support Officers, without yet the funding to keep them in place.  We all know that local governments are in desperate financial straits; that social care is a neglected area that is dragging the NHS down with it; and we need to increase our defence budget substantially.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 40 Comments
Tony Vickers

Trump, Taxes & Tariffs

By Tony Vickers | Tue 11th February 2025 - 9:55 am

Those of us who know of Henry George and his “Single Tax” on land values may not know that he was also against tariffs. I didn’t until in 1998 I was appointed Chief Executive at the Henry George Foundation (HGF) of Great Britain and learned that it was part of a federation of such bodies called The International Union of Land Value Taxation and Free Trade (or “The IU” for short). The same year ALTER was founded to revive a Land Campaign in the Lib Dems.

I was reminded how George’s thinking linked tax and tariffs when reading a piece by Jonty Bloom in my favourite weekly journal The New European recently. 

I am neither an economist but it seems common sense that tariffs hurt the countries which impose them most. Bloom’s piece reminds us that the inter-war Great Depression was made far worse when America’s action in isolation to impose tariffs was met tit-for-tat by most other trading nations.

In contrast, Trump Mark 1’s tariffs post-2020 were largely ignored by the rest of the world and hence largely only affected America: more jobs were lost there than in countries hit by tariffs.

The reason, according to Professor Michael Gasiorek, is that tariffs raise the imposing county’s domestic price of imports of a product. This allows its domestic producers to increase their price to just below the newly raised price of the imports, assuming the importer doesn’t absorb the tariff. “Capitalist greed”, according to current logic, ensures that prices rise for consumers in the tariff raising country, thereby reducing spending power and/or causing inflation there. 

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 18 Comments
Mo Waqas

Why populism thrives and how we beat it – Part 2

By Mo Waqas | Tue 11th February 2025 - 7:30 am

In Part 1, I introduced some ideas about how we beat populism, focusing on immigration. Today, I am going to look at the NHS, the economy and our political system.

Saving the NHS from Populist Scare Tactics

The NHS is under siege, and the populists love it. They use its struggles to push their own agenda, claiming that the solution is to privatise services or cut back on waste. But the NHS isn’t failing because of inefficiency or because too many people are using it. It is failing because governments have underfunded it for years, forcing doctors and nurses to work under impossible conditions while patients wait months for treatment.

The Conservatives say they are investing in the NHS, but in reality, they have allowed it to be slowly privatised, handing contracts to private companies and driving doctors out of the system. Reform UK claims it will get rid of NHS “red tape” but offers no actual funding or plan to stop the crisis. If we want to save our health service, we need real investment, not slogans. That means recruiting and retaining more doctors and nurses by increasing pay and improving working conditions. It means guaranteeing a GP appointment within a week, so people don’t turn to A&E out of desperation. It means properly integrating social care with the NHS so elderly and vulnerable patients aren’t left stranded in hospital beds because there’s nowhere for them to go. It means shifting the focus to prevention, tackling long-term health issues like obesity and mental illness before they become crises.

Fighting Economic Populism – Real Prosperity, Not Empty Promises

Nothing fuels populist anger more than economic insecurity. Wages are stagnant, housing is unaffordable, and bills keep rising. People feel like they’re working harder for less while the rich get richer. And they’re right—because the system is rigged.

Reform UK’s answer is to slash taxes and cut regulations. The Conservatives promise tax cuts too, despite 14 years of economic stagnation. Both parties push the idea that lower taxes will magically create jobs and growth, but we’ve seen this experiment fail again and again. Cutting taxes for the rich does nothing for working people.

The real solution is an economy that rewards hard work, not just wealth. That means raising wages so that people earn enough to live, not just survive. It means fixing the housing crisis so young people can afford a home again. It means backing small businesses so local entrepreneurs can thrive instead of being crushed by big corporations. It means making the tax system fairer, so billionaires and multinationals pay their share instead of shifting the burden onto working people.

Restoring Trust – Cleaning Up the Corrupt Political System

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged , , , and | 16 Comments
Caron Lindsay

David Chadwick stands up for coalfield communities

By Caron Lindsay | Mon 10th February 2025 - 2:55 pm

Last Thursday, I was working from home with BBC Parliament going in the background. I was only half listening but was impressed by a speech by a Welsh MP who had real empathy for those communities and told how his great-grandfather died after hours of working waist deep in ice cold water. It was only later on that I realised that this speech was made by our own David Chadwick.

According to my husband who spent the first 20 years of his career working in various collieries around the country, David’s remarks had been going down exceptionally well with former miners on some online forums.

Here is the speech in full:

I am proud to represent several former coalmining communities. Abercraf, Cwmtwrch, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, Ystradgynlais, Pontardawe and Rhos are just a few of the proud former mining communities that I represent. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this debate.

Across Wales, nearly 800,000 people—about a third of the population—live in former coalmining towns and villages, and I am very proud to come from a Welsh mining family. I will never forget my grandfather taking me to see his father’s grave in Maesteg cemetery. His father died aged 34 after working up to his waist in ice-cold water for several hours. The men and women of our coalfield communities made huge sacrifices to power this country, so it is right that we are discussing the future of their communities today.

To cut a long story short, Welsh mining communities have been left behind by successive Governments. Margaret Thatcher’s policies—the closure of our major industry in Wales and the failure to replace it with anything else—have left lasting scars. It is not hard to see why people in south Wales wonder whether their Governments are listening to them. This Parliament is an open goal for the Government to repair the damage done by Thatcherism. The Conservative party squandered many of its 13 years in power, carrying on with a London-centric banker-friendly form of growth that means younger generations have to leave for the cities, as my mum did 30 years ago. This Government must not repeat the mistake.

Across the former south Wales coalfields, the economic reality is dire. Wages are lower than the national average, job growth is sluggish and unemployment remains high. In fact, in the south Wales coalfields, there are just 46 jobs for every 100 working-age people. Nearly 800,000 people—a third of the entire population of Wales—live in those areas, which is why they are so important to the Welsh economy. Wales is £10,000 a head poorer than England, and fixing our former coalmining communities is key to fixing the Welsh economy. Coalfield communities deserve to be at the forefront of economic renewal. People in coalfield communities want the Government to show them that they matter. They are desperate for change.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged , and | 2 Comments
Josh Lucas Mitte

Moving beyond tactical votes: Taking the fight to Labour – everywhere.

By Josh Lucas Mitte | Mon 10th February 2025 - 12:55 pm

The following article is primarily concerned with how we approach Labour voters nationally and locally (outside Labour-facing seats). I have much respect for the many local parties, whether in Liverpool or Southwark, who have taken a strong fight to Labour and for whom much of the criticism here would not apply.

The 2019 and 2024 General Elections made one thing clear – parties cannot control tactical voting, only voters can, and their decision is circumstantial. The reason it worked in 2024 without alliances but failed in 2019 with pacts is because voters were ready to do it in the former and not the latter, our leaflets simply reminded them we were the best option in certain areas.

Almost all the leaflets targeted at Labour voters in target seats simply had previous results as a reason to vote for us, rarely providing any reasons to differentiate us from Labour. This was to avoid ‘offending’ Labour voters who could tactically vote for us, which was understandable, the persistence of this mindset, however, is not. Our dependence on a pure tactical voting message has left us with a chunk of unsustainable voters (YouGov Oct ’24), we saw how detrimental a reliance on borrowed votes can be with the collapse of the Conservative vote in the Red Wall. 

As the Conservatives continue to struggle with their national revival, often placing third in the polls, and Labour continues with unpopular decisions in government, the notion of tactical voting weakens more and more. A recent poll puts us within 11 percentage points of four other parties. This becomes a greater issue amongst younger generations who are so disillusioned with the establishment (a recent poll showed they’d prefer a dictatorship) that they are more likely to vote on values, not statistical probabilities – especially when those statistics show “this is how things have been in the past.” 

But it is not too late, we can still fully switch these voters to create a more sustainable base, but only if we have the courage to take the fight to Labour.

We must shake off the fear of offending Labour voters for three reasons.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 8 Comments
Matthew Ma

ALDC by-election Report, 6th February

By Matthew Ma | Mon 10th February 2025 - 10:29 am

Welcome back from the break! There were 6 principal council seats up for election last week: 4 Labour, 1 Conservative, and 1 Lib Dem defence. Labour continues to decline, holding only one seat while losing two to Reform and one to the Conservatives. The Tories also lost their seat to Reform, while the Lib Dems held their only seat of the week.

In Wokingham BC, Cllr Chetna Jamthe secured over 50% of the vote and maintained a healthy lead over second place Conservative candidate. Well done and congratulations to Chetna and the team for the win in the Winnersh ward.

Wokingham BC, Winnersh
Liberal Democrat (Chetna Jamthe): 1177 (52.7%, -7.2%)
CON: 833 (37.3%, +10.7%)
LAB: 126 (5.6%, -5.1%)
GRN: 99 (4.4%, new)

Tendring DC saw another strong performance of the Lib Dems, as Rachael Richards doubles the vote share, but ultimately losing to Reform in The Bentleys & Frating. Well done to Rachael and the local team for the work put into running this great campaign, you’ll get them next time.

Tendring DC, The Bentleys & Frating
Reform: 432 (45.3%, new)
Liberal Democrat (Rachael Richards): 328 (34.4%, +16.8%)
Conservative: 163 (17.1%, -31.4%)
Labour: 31 (3.2%, -7.7%)

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Tagged | 6 Comments
Mo Waqas

Why populism thrives and how we beat it – Part 1

By Mo Waqas | Mon 10th February 2025 - 7:30 am

Britain is in crisis. The cost of living is spiralling, wages are stagnant, public services are collapsing, and trust in politics is at an all-time low. People feel powerless, ignored, and abandoned by those in charge. And when that happens, anger grows. Populists know this. They thrive on it. They don’t want to fix the problems; they want to exploit them. They fuel resentment, offering easy scapegoats and simplistic answers that sound good but solve nothing.

They tell people that migrants are stealing their jobs, that the NHS is broken because of bureaucracy, that the economy is failing because of a corrupt elite. Reform UK and the Conservatives both play this game, but they do it in different ways. Reform shouts about “taking our country back” while offering no real policies beyond shutting the borders and slashing taxes. The Conservatives, desperate to hold onto power, mimic Reform’s rhetoric, blaming migration for their own economic failures. Neither of them is interested in solutions. They want people to be angry because it keeps them in business.

It is easy to be angry. I understand why people are furious. They have been let down. They have been promised change again and again, yet nothing ever improves. But anger alone won’t fix Britain. It won’t shorten NHS waiting times or put money in people’s pockets. What we need is leadership that takes that anger and channels it into real action. If we want to defeat populism, we need to do it by delivering real results, not through fear-mongering or division.

Populists succeed when people feel like they have no control over their lives. They feed on frustration and convince people that only drastic, destructive action can change things. Reform UK wants to scrap Net Zero, pull Britain out of international agreements, and introduce a US-style immigration system that would choke businesses of the skilled workers they need. The Conservatives, rather than offering stability, now talk about legal migration caps and sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. These aren’t policies—they’re distractions. The only way to stop them is to address the root causes of their success—economic insecurity, public service decline, and political failure.

Fixing immigration with competence, not chaos

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 10 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tom Arms
    Will the teachers be paid more?...
  • Matt Wardman
    On Transport, there is currently a fascinating 3 year project for public transport starting up in the Peak District called "Hope Valley Mini Switzerland", which...
  • Pawel Urbanski
    Sean, a really good article. One part of this deserves more attention: what AI could mean for small businesses. Running a small company often means doing alm...
  • Jana
    I’m afraid I disagree with Douglas MacDonald and his idea of turning Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen into city-states. I believe a better model is to have a g...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "There also seems a reluctance to focus on the effect that AI will have on the distribution of income and wealth." Quite...