Tag Archives: featured

Josh Babarinde writes…The Lib Dem Summer of Strategy

The May local elections have shown us we’re at a critical point for this party, and we need to decide where to go next.

There were some great results to celebrate. We gained three councils, 153 councillors, and hit double figures in Scotland. We knocked on over three million doors, and had more than a million conversations on the doorstep. Our canvassing was up 25% on four years ago. Our polling day activity was so strong, it was nearly at General Election levels! Our members, activists, councillors, staff and parliamentarians pulled out all the stops. It was an incredible effort and I am so so proud to be a part of it.

But I know that only tells part of the story. We didn’t make enough gains across key parts of the country, particularly in the North, the Midlands and urban areas. As someone who once stood for Parliament in Tower Hamlets, I mean it when I say that liberalism should be a key offer to our inner cities. 

Ever since I became Party President, I have been clear that I want us to go further than places we are comfortable. It is time to be ambitious. We cannot afford to abandon parts of the country because they may be difficult for us to reach. Politics is crying out for a serious, positive, liberal message, and we leave no stone unturned. 

There were brilliant candidates who gave everything to campaigns and didn’t get what they deserved. I campaigned (to name a few) in Cardiff, Hull, Southwark, Birmingham, Sheffield and Cambridge. Watching some of them lose to Reform or Green candidates who put in a fraction of the effort we did was utterly gutting. 

With all that said, with populism and nationalism on the rise, and with a crowded multi-party system intensifying, we need a new party strategy to meet this new moment. 

A party strategy built by members

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 3 Comments

Alison Suttie writes: Thank you to our volunteers

Headshot of Baroness Alison SuttieThank you.

As we mark Volunteers’ Week, that’s the message I most want to share with the hundreds of Liberal Democrat members who give their time to support our candidate approval and selection processes.

As Chair of the Joint Candidates Sub-Committee, I see first-hand every week the extraordinary contribution our volunteers make. Whether you sit on approval panels, help organise assessments, support candidate development, serve on selection committees, provide mentoring, stand as a candidate or any of the other ways volunteers keep the whole process running behind the scenes, you are helping to build the future of our party. 

Every approval conducted and every selection completed is only possible because volunteers step forward to make it happen. Your efforts ensure that local parties across the country can put forward strong Liberal Democrat voices in their communities. 

So, to everyone who has played a part – thank you. Thank you for the evenings spent on Zoom, the weekends given up for assessments, the paperwork, the interviews, the mentoring conversations and all the countless hours that most members never see. 

As we look ahead to the next General Election, our work is far from finished. We will need more approved candidates, more selections completed and more support for those stepping forward to represent our party. That means we will once again be asking members to volunteer their time and expertise. 

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 1 Comment

What’s going on with party strategy?

Once per Parliament, the Federal Board is obliged to put before Conference a party strategy. Article 5.1 of the Federal Constitution states:

The Federal Board shall have the responsibility periodically, and at least onceper Parliament, for preparing a document outlining the Party’s strategy, inconjunction with the Leader’s political strategy, for submission for debate and
agreement by Conference.

The Board’s plan is to bring a strategy to Autumn Conference. If the anger following the local elections is anything to go by, members will be looking for a commitment to developing a nationally relevant message to re-establish us as a viable national alternative. Ed Davey’s comments about wanting us to be “the party of Middle England” have sparked huge concern in the party. There is a feeling that we are being too timid for fear of upsetting the Daily Mail at a time when the country is screaming out for a liberal alternative to the populist parties of right and left. Imagine that, a party that fixes stuff, stands up for liberal values and really resonates with people who are, to use a good Scottish word, scunnered with politics.

PoliticsHome has an article this weekend titled “Inside the Lib Dem strategy rethink.” Several MPs are quoted, including Tom Gordon, Layla Moran, Daisy Cooper along with some who are un-named.

Politics Home says the party is looking at changing direction:

To that end, the party is undergoing a strategy and policy overhaul, with key areas of discussion including the economy, welfare, and, as the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum approaches, a bolder stance on the European Union.

Tom Gordon confirmed the rethink:

I don’t think it was necessarily the wrong approach, but just given the nature and the timeline of where we’re at in this parliament and the political events and that fragmentation, I think there is now a rethinking of what we do, what we offer, how we’re more punchy, how we’re bolder, and what the offer from us is.

A senior MP hinted at an approach that to me sounds too managerial:

The MP said the party is “starting to think about the economy in a much more structural manner”, and the frontbench team had been “set a task of properly scrutinising departmental budgets, where money is being spent”.

They added that the party needs to “make sure we are economically credible”, with there being more appetite from figures at the top of the party towards thinking about what the Lib Dem offering would be in a potential future coalition.

Layla Moran sounded optimistic about what was coming:

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 16 Comments

A strange but welcome feeling

I write this as a serial and vocal complainer about much of what the Parliamentary Party does. I have been such for many years. Way back in the neolithic era I won awards for blogging my complaints. So it’s only fair that when the Parliamentary Party knocks something out of the park I be equally vocal with my praise.

Firstly, on Sunday, Ed Davey, our leader and Marie Goldman, our Equalities Spokes, sent this letter to Bridget Phillipson. The consensus among the exec of LGBT+LDs was “well, we might have worded a couple of things differently, but mostly, it’s really good”. We weren’t really surprised at Marie’s name being on it, because she’s been consistently great in the equalities role from day one, but Ed putting his name to it was a very welcome surprise.

Then yesterday’s debate on the EHRC New Section 28, I’m sorry, services guidance happened in parliament. And our MPs were MAGNIFICENT.

It’s worth reading the whole thing in Hansard, for exactly how great they all were (and how awful the non-responses from the Labour minister were), but I want to do a roll call. First up was Marvellous Marie, who pointed out how unworkable the guidance was, and asked the minister to consider new legislation.

Then came my fellow Yorkshirer Tom Gordon, who was appalled by the Tory response.

Then, Honorary President of LGBT+ LDs Queen CJ admonished the minister for her non-adherence to the spirit of the Equality Act.

Then, Layla Moran asked the minister to consider what would be the consequences if her assertions that this document provides protections for trans and non-binary folks were wrong.

Then, Josh Babarinde, our Party President, not only made the point that this code does nothing to protect women and girls, but also gave a shout out to LGBT+LDs and Lib Dem Women.

Then, Vikki Slade pointed out the lack of respect for human rights of trans and non-binary people.

Then, Charlotte Cane asked “Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?”.

And then Mike Martin asked for a vote on the code itself.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , and | 19 Comments

Observations of an Expat: The Elephant Returns

For several years the Brexit elephant sat quietly in a corner of Westminster, ignored by politicians who hoped it would eventually wander away. Instead, it has stood up, stretched its legs and begun stomping through the corridors of power once again.

“Rejoin,” Brexit was a “catastrophic mistake,” declared wannabe prime minister Wes Streeting.

Not so fast, said other main contender Andy Burnham, he hoped Britain would rejoin “in my lifetime” (Burnham is 56), but feared that any sudden rush to rejoin would further divide an already divided country.

Former PM Tony Blair then entered the fray with his 6,000-word essay. The former staunch Remainer opposed a quick application to return to the European fold. Instead, Britain should concentrate on rebuilding its economy and repairing relations with Brussels.

The Liberal Democrats remain the most pro-European party. But even they are focused more on a gradual progression—a return to the Customs Union by the end of this decade and practical moves towards deeper cooperation and integration.

The Conservatives, Reform and the new far-right party Restore, are simply against anything that smacks of improved relations with Brussels.

But what about the Europeans? They opposed Britain leaving, but they do they want Britain back?

In many respects, Britain is quite a catch for the EU, especially as the Ukraine War  and the rise of China has forced it to focus increasingly on security issues. Britain has Europe’s largest navy with 450,000 tons under the Union Jack. France is just behind but current UK defense plans will put it well ahead by 2040.

Then there is the fact that Britain is a nuclear power. President Emmanuel Macron has talked about extending the French nuclear umbrella to other European countries. Such pledges would be more effective if they included the British deterrent.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 13 Comments

Liberal Democrats should be the first choice for women

The recent local elections should have been a moment for honest reflection within the Liberal Democrats. Instead, much of the response has felt overwhelmingly positive, almost detached from the frustrations expressed by many hardworking candidates and activists, particularly in urban areas where our results were deeply disappointing.

Optimism has its place in politics, but if we continue to avoid difficult conversations, we risk ignoring the deeper issues steadily weakening our party from within.

As Chair of Lib Dem Women, Vice Chair Campaign for Gender Balance, and former Council Group Leader and Leader of the Opposition in Lambeth, I believe one issue can no longer be ignored: the Liberal Democrats’ continued failure to properly represent, attract and retain women.

For as long as I have been a Liberal Democrat activist, one question has consistently followed us, both internally and on the doorstep: what do the Liberal Democrats actually stand for?

Many of us have defended the party passionately over the years, pointing to our liberal values, commitment to equality and strong policy platform. Yet despite all of this, the question never truly goes away.

For too long, we have relied on a narrow understanding of campaigning success: leaflets, door knocking and data. Of course these things matter, but they are not enough on their own. Recent elections have exposed that reality clearly.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 11 Comments

Liberal Democrats cannot afford to be absent from Britain’s cities

The Liberal Democrats have a growing urban problem and pretending otherwise will only make it worse.

Last week’s local election results exposed something many campaigners in cities have felt for some time: our local organisation is often far stronger than our national political message. In too many urban areas, particularly diverse cities, voters simply do not hear a compelling Liberal Democrat case for why we matter to modern Britain.

Politics today is increasingly shaped nationally, even in local elections. Voters consume politics through social media, online debate, podcasts and national narratives. Parties that succeed understand this and communicate with clarity and confidence. Too often, we do not.

In cities especially, the Liberal Democrats can appear politically invisible not because our values are unpopular, but because our national message lacks definition and urgency. We are too often seen as a party speaking comfortably to affluent southern seats while struggling to project a clear vision for younger renters, working-class families and diverse urban communities.

That should concern us because those voters ought to be natural Liberal Democrats.

I recently wrote privately and constructively to Ed Davey to raise these concerns and invited him to Southwark to discuss them further. Not to complain, but because there are genuine signs of opportunity if the party is prepared to adapt.

In Southwark, despite difficult national headwinds, we gained a councillor and returned 12 Liberal Democrat councillors in one of the most diverse boroughs in the country. That success did not come from national momentum. It came from relentless local campaigning, strong community relationships and candidates with personal credibility built over years of work. But we deserved to get far more people elected and do better.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 12 Comments

The UK’s political leadership deficit

Political leadership is about changing the public agenda. Keir Starmer has failed to sway public opinion on major issues. Nigel Farage has been a much more effective political leader, albeit for a fraudulent project. He successfully made the argument for leaving the EU against the conventional wisdom of the majority of the British political elite and political commentators.

Margaret Thatcher was in this sense also a highly effective leader. She defied the civil service, many within her own party and Cabinet, and wide sections of the public, and drove through a deliberate shrinking of the size and functions of the state, through tax cuts, privatization, curbs on local government, selling off social housing and more. Politicians today still hesitate to challenge assumptions about outsourcing of public services or pledging to lower taxes, in spite of the very different economic and demographic circumstances we face. The nationalization of British Steel and the return of the railways to unified public management are moves away from neo-liberal orthodoxy – but the water industry still seems a step too far.

Keir Starmer has proved incapable of engaging with the public. The Strategic Defence Review, published ten months ago, called for a ‘National Conversation’ on the multiple threats our country now faces and the response needed to meet them. But we have been told almost nothing since then, and the promised Defence Industrial Plan is still blocked by the Treasury’s refusal to fund it. He’s just delivered another speech on how to ‘reset’ our relations with the EU, which began with some splendid rhetoric and ended with a promise of ensuring better youth mobility, without attempting to explain the complexities of closer cooperation with our neighbours or the trade-offs between sovereignty and shared prosperity and security that we have to make. Worst of all, neither the prime minister or his chancellor have tried to engage the public on the hard choices to be made on public spending and investment in pursuit of sustainable economic growth.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 6 Comments

Vince Cable writes: Escaping the Brexit dilemma

There is a Brexit dilemma: a growing consensus that Brexit was a bad mistake together with the fatalistic acceptance that nothing much can be done about it.

For committed Remainers, there is the smug satisfaction of having been right all along. The predicted economic costs have duly materialised. The less predicted global upheaval has left Britain dangerously stranded in a geo-economic no-mans-land.  Public opinion polls are increasingly negative about Brexit. 

If the mistake is so obvious, surely then Britain can and will re-join, with some urgency?  But there is a big difference between the virtual reality

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 17 Comments

Another stream of consciousness on the election results – England this time

So we’re up 155 councillors in England. We can give ourselves a big pat on the back, right?

Well, maybe not.

Let’s look at London. A tale of two cities in one if ever there was one.

In the leafy southern areas, our heartlands, our results were, to be honest, unhealthily good. While it is a testament to how well our councils in Richmond, Sutton and Kingston are doing and are regarded by local people, holding virtually all the seats just isn’t conducive to good, inclusive government.  Even though it would disadvantage us, perhaps we should really be pushing for PR for local government as much as national.

But it wasn’t all plain sailing in that neck of the woods. In Merton, we had hoped to do much better against a dreadful Labour Council, but our gains were modest and Labour easily held control, gaining a seat from the Conservatives in the process.

It was a completely different story in inner London where the Green vote rocketed up.

Voters looked to them, not our well established Council groups, to defeat Labour and several councils, including Southwark, Haringey and Lambeth went to no overall control as the Greens surged. In Islington, where we once ran the Council, we didn’t make the breakthrough we had hoped and I was very sad that talented people like Rebecca Jones didn’t get elected despite spirited campaigns. In Haringey, voters again looked to the Greens and another disappointment was that Shamim Muhammad missed out. She spoke in the global women’s rights debate we had at Federal Conference and would have been a powerful voice for women’s rights on the Council.

We ran full, locally relevant campaigns in those areas and worked our socks off. The Greens did next to nothing on the ground but yet hoovered up hundreds of Council seats.

Why?

Everyone knows what the Greens stand for. They are speaking to people’s concerns about the divisive rhetoric we see from Reform and other socially conservative sources, about inequality, about poverty, about housing, about the international situation. And our lack of a cohesive national message is holding us back.  People do not feel that we get it, that we are on their side.

The challenge for us is that the Greens is that they are going full throttle with an emotionally resonant message that connects with people and we are not.  We sound technocratic. We lack passion. We don’t respond with suitable levels of outrage when the Prime Minister comes out with Reform lite garbage on immigration. In fact we come out with nonsense that sounds like we’re pandering to it only to put out a slightly better thing a few days later. It’s mixed messaging that makes us look untrustworthy.

We don’t have to promise everyone a free puppy, as the Greens frequently come close to doing, but we do need to wear our liberal values on our sleeve. It is simply not good enough to slightly shamefacedly and timidly put out something saying we are against division without actually taking on the arguments advanced by those who are stoking the division.

Our job as a liberal party is to bring people together and protect marginalised communities from attack and we need to be much better and clearer about it.

We look very much at the moment that we are here to serve the home counties and “blue wall” seats when we should be a voice for the north and our cities too.

So much of what we say seems to be moderated by timidity. We fear upsetting those in those seats more than we fear failing those in the rest of the country. Our liberal values are universal and we need to apply them and be relevant in every setting.

I understand that some key councillors across the country were warning that we needed to up our game against the Greens a long time ago and were ignored. The results this week show that we will lose out in the future if we fail to do that. In places like Oxfordshire we need to keep all progressive voters onside if we are going to continue to win. If we don’t, and at some point in the future the Tories and Reform merge and unite the right block vote, we will be in peril.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 44 Comments

Just peachy! Scotland needs change with fairness at its heart

This Scottish election campaign has been exciting from a Scottish Lib Dem point of view. For the first time in 15 years, we have a real chance of making significant gains in our representation. The polls are putting us anywhere between 8 and 13 from our current 5.

Alex Cole-Hamilton has been brilliant at delivering our message. He lands it every time and somehow manages to make it sound fresh.

He has been on fire. Watch him tackle John Swinney on ferries in the last tv leaders’ debate:

We are focusing on 4 key areas:

  • Fixing health care so you can see a GP, mental health professional or GP when you need to
  • Cutting the cost of living by insulating cold homes and using our renewable energy to cut bills
  • Getting Scotland moving again – sort ferries, buses, other public transport and roads
  • Getting Scottish education back up the rankings by putting 2000 pupil support assistants back into classrooms and taking mobile phones out.

Our aims is to win an extra 6 constituencies in addition to the ones we already hold:

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 2 Comments

What is the economy for? Liberalism already knows the answer

What is the economy for?

It’s a simple question. But how we answer it underpins everything else in politics.

We created the economy to serve us – to make life easier, safer, better. It is a human system, designed to help people thrive.

But somewhere along the way, that relationship has become inverted. Too often, it feels as though people and communities are expected to bend themselves around the demands of the economy, rather than the other way round.

For decades, we have treated GDP growth as the ultimate measure of success. If the number goes up, we assume things are getting better. But most people instinctively know that isn’t the full story.

GDP can rise while people feel less secure, less connected, and less hopeful. It can rise while our rivers are polluted, our soils depleted, and our public services stretched. It can rise while inequality widens and communities fracture.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 66 Comments

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

Jeanette Sunderland running Photo Credit: Bradford Lib Dems

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 3 Comments

Wendy Chamberlain to run London Marathon

It says something about Wendy Chamberlain’s capacity for hard work that in amongst being Chief Whip, an energetic constituency MP, and running the Scottish elections that she’s going to be running the London Marathon two weeks today.

Here she is talking to Radio 5 Live about it this week:

Obviously we wish Wendy all the best in her endeavour, but we should all really put our money where our mouths are too. Wendy is using her run as an opportunity to raise money for two charities very close to her heart.

Wendy has been raising the issue of PANS PANDAS ever since a constituent came to her not long after she was elected. Donate here.

PANS PANDAS UK is a charity that was established by a dedicated group of parents with children that are affected by these conditions who were determined to make a difference to how these conditions are understood by both the general public and the medical profession.

I came across the conditions during my constituency work when I was contacted by a family who were struggling to support their daughter and navigating health and education challenges. I became a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group for PANS PANDAs and led a debate in Parliament. Following the General Election in 2024 I secured a meeting for the charity with the relevant health minister.

Support for PANS PANDAS remains very patchy with families often dependent on having a supportive GP who is willing to consider the conditions as the cause of the very distressing symptoms that include OCD, tics, restrictive eating behaviours, anxiety and enuresis. The money raised from my maraton efforts will be used to support further research.

And we know from her Carer’s Leave Act how much supporting carers means to her. She is also raising money for Fife Carers’ Centre. Donate here.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 9 Comments

Elections kick off – six exhilarating weeks ahead

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

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

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

I have to show you …

Posted in News and Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 3 Comments

Read and watch: Ed Davey’s speech to Conference

Ed Davey’s speech to Conference yesterday is already proving controversial within the party. His announcement that we are now calling for the country to develop its own independent nuclear deterrent had one member in tears and others mystified. Given that we will be debating a paper on international security in Autumn, people were wondering why that proposal could not have been properly announced as part of that process.

Anything to do with nuclear weapons has long been an emotive issue for the party.  Over dinner the other night, we were talking about the (before my time) leadership defeat on its proposal of developing a nuclear weapon with France at the Eastbourne Liberal Assembly. What will happen on the 40th anniversary of that? We have had many knife edge debates on this subject which have often led to fudge and long grass and the “part time submarine” coalition era proposal is ridiculed every Glee Club to the tune of Yellow Submarine.

The world is a different place now. The Cold War was thawing back in 1986 and people were feeling more optimistic. Having an erratic narcissist with neither understanding of or respect for international law makes everything a lot more complex and the global situation a lot more dangerous. When Conference comes to vote on this proposal, what will today’s members think? Will they consider that spending so much on nuclear weapons is what we need to do to keep our country safe or is the answer more soldiers, navy officers and airforce personnel?

However much you love Ed Davey’s stunts, and I love them a lot, most of the time,  I do have to think that coming on stage to Daddy Cool, complete with Macron style sunglasses, was an interesting choice when he was just about to talk about spending gazillions on a whole new generation of weapon of mass destruction. I guess it shows he has range.

Anyway, the video of his speech is below so you can watch for yourself. And below that is the text as specifically requested by one of our readers. This comes probably much later than he might have liked but the company and the black cherry gin at the Mason’s Arms was too good.

Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 18 Comments

Support WASPI women at Conference

When Liberal Democrats gather at conference, we often debate policy in terms of budgets, systems and reforms. But sometimes an issue comes before us that cuts far deeper than policy mechanics. The injustice faced by women born in the 1950s, or WASPI women, is one of those.

This is not simply about pensions. It is about fairness, trust in government, and how we treat the generation of women who helped build the Britain we benefit from today.

Millions of women born in the 1950s were affected by rapid increases to the State Pension Age. In some cases, their retirement age rose by as much as six years. The real injustice, however, was not just the change itself, but how it was communicated.

Many women discovered these changes with as little as 18 months’ notice.

Eighteen months is not enough time to rebuild a retirement plan that someone has spent forty years working towards. Retirement planning is something people structure their entire working lives around. To suddenly move the goalposts so dramatically, without proper notice, left millions of women in an impossible position.

In contrast, by contrast, typically received up to six years’ notice for an increase of just one year, exposing the deeply unequal and gendered impact of these changes.

We now know that this was not simply unfortunate or unavoidable. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated and found maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions in failing to properly notify women of changes to their State Pension age. That is not the language of campaigners or political opponents; it is the official conclusion of the body Parliament established to hold government departments accountable.

Yet despite this finding, justice for these women is still being denied. On 29 January this year, the Labour Government announced that it would not be compensating these women.

This is particularly disappointing given how many now Labour cabinet ministers previously expressed their support for the WASPI women when they sought their votes, only to deny them any compensation at all once in office.

Lib Dem Women, the official body representing women in the Liberal Democrats, has submitted an emergency motion calling on the Government to accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations, to apologise to the women affected and to introduce a fair, transparent and comprehensive compensation scheme. You can read it here in Conference Extra.

This motion is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that women who were failed by the system are not ignored. The generation of women who are most affected are also the generation who started their careers before the Sex Discrimination Act so they could be sacked for getting pregnant or even married, didn’t have much in the way of childcare provision and were on the sharp end of the gender pay gap. To make them wait up to an additional six years for their State Pension is an injustice too far.

Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 9 Comments

Caroline Pidgeon Tackling road safety by helping vulnerable road users

Just one per cent of traffic, but twenty-one per cent of fatalities. A shocking statement. This is the reality of motorcycling on our roads. This underpins the danger of being a motorcyclist on Britain’s roads. It is a disparity that shows no sign of diminishing nor, unfortunately, being addressed by government.

The Government’s recent Road Safety Strategy is broadly welcome. While one of the measures in the Road Safety Strategy will help motorcyclist safety, namely increased funding for combatting the scourge of potholes on Britain’s roads, there is little else that is new or transformative for motorcyclists, one of the most vulnerable groups of road users.

The Strategy discusses how “Legislative changes introduced to improve safety for motorcyclists have resulted in a complex motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime, with motorcyclists remaining at greater risk of KSIs than many other road users.” But the actions to make things safer are limited.

The main thrust of the government’s plans is that it will be consulting on changes to the training, testing and licensing regime for motorcyclists. Whilst this is very welcome, and something I have had concerns about for some time, especially with the increase in delivery drivers, more is needed.

In some ways, the government acknowledges the dire statistics on road safety for motorcyclists. Then they explain how, thus far, the main safety changes that successive governments have introduced have done very little to affect motorcyclist safety. The follow up is to then announce that they will do more of the same tinkering around the rules.

Meanwhile, the same Road Safety Strategy introduced plans for 18 new mandatory technologies for cars and other powered four-wheel vehicles. This is a clear example of how, for most motorists, the new Road Safety Strategy is very good. There is plenty to celebrate. But this only makes the difference in treatment that much harder to accept.

It is a glaring hole in the strategy. Motorcyclists, by the nature of a motorbike, are more vulnerable and yet the government appears to not want to embrace any potential safety advancements.

Since 2018, all new cars have been hooked up the eCall programme, a national programme for crash detection. However, despite motorcyclists being far more vulnerable in crashes there is no equivalent system even being considered by the government. This is a missed opportunity in the strategy.

Posted in News | Also tagged , and | Leave a comment

Hina Bokhari writes… After years of delay, the Government’s Islamophobia definition still misses the mark

It’s finally here.

After years of campaigning by Muslim organisations and communities, against the backdrop of record levels of hate crime, the government has finally chosen the holiest time of Ramadan to publish its definition of what it calls “anti-Muslim hostility”.

And what do we have to show for all that waiting?

A watered-down version of a definition we already had.

The 2018 All-Party Parliamentary Group definition of Islamophobia was endorsed by more than 800 community organisations, over 100 academics, and every major political party except the then-governing Conservatives. It was the result of genuine consultation and rooted in the lived experience of Muslim communities.

So why has it taken this government years to deliver something that appears deliberately diluted? Why was the recommendation of its own independent working group seemingly not good enough? And why, throughout this entire process, were grassroots Muslim organisations largely excluded from meaningful engagement?

This isn’t just about the wording of the definition – though many have already raised serious concerns about what was diluted and why. This is about the process that produced it.

The Macpherson Inquiry established a clear principle: communities must play a central role in defining the racism they experience. Yet that lesson appears to have been ignored.

The process has been marked by exclusion, by hand-picked representatives replacing genuine grassroots engagement, and by a government seemingly more concerned with managing political optics than listening to the communities it claims to protect.
And perhaps the most telling failure of yesterday’s announcement was what the government chose not to say.

In 2016, the UK government adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. That decision was taken quickly and with broad political consensus. Yesterday’s announcement could have been an opportunity to say clearly: we are doing for Muslim communities what we already did for Jewish communities nearly a decade ago.
Instead, that comparison went unspoken.

That matters because bad-faith actors, including much of the British media, have spent years spreading the lie that recognising Islamophobia somehow gives Muslims “special treatment”. The truth is the opposite. British Muslims are not asking for something extraordinary. We are asking for the same recognition and seriousness that other forms of racism rightly receive.

Fairness, not favours.

The key question is where we go from here. Organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamophobia Response Unit are not endorsing this definition at the present time. They are reserving judgement, recognising that a definition is merely a starting point.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 2 Comments

Parent? Guardian? Expecting? Tell us your thoughts on childcare at Conference

Parents holding baby with words Tell us your views on childcare at ConferenceI was listening to Marie Agnes Strack-Zimmerman, a German MEP answer a question on the delivery of Taurus missiles to Ukraine at a forum in Copenhagen. She was momentarily interrupted by the gurgles of a 4 month old sat on the knee of a friend from the Danish Radikale party. As Zimmerman remarked that it was good to get her interested in defence policy so young, it struck me that I had rarely, if ever, seen children so comfortably integrated into British political spaces.

We have some mums brave Lib Dem Conference with a papoose, but having spoken to even some of the most determined parents, it’s clearly harder to coordinate family life around the party than it should be. Some question whether their families are welcome at all.

I for one want to make it overwhelmingly clear that the Liberal Democrats welcomes members as they navigate family life and that we should be striving to be the best party to be a parent or carer. I want to hear from you about making conference, the nerve centre of our party, work for families.

The Federal Conference Committee’s survey for parents, guardians and anyone expecting is open for your input. If your children are grown up or you’re a professional childcare provider, please answer no to the first question and use the free-form text box to share your views.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 2 Comments

Power shared, not hoarded: finishing the argument

Roz Savage’s piece earlier this week, and Jack Meredith’s response to it, have done something worth building on. This is an attempt to follow the logic a few steps further, because I think it leads somewhere important.

The strongest thing in Savage’s piece is the power axis. “Power hoarded versus power shared” is not just better messaging than left versus right. It’s a more honest description of what’s actually happening in Britain. Decisions that shape people’s lives are made in places they can’t reach, by institutions they didn’t choose, in processes they can’t scrutinise. That’s a liberal problem, not just a left-wing one.

Meredith picks this up thoughtfully. He’s right that different liberal traditions notice different concentrations of power. Social liberals see material inequality. Market liberals see monopoly and cartel behaviour. Civil libertarians see the state. Bring them into the same room, and they converge, even if they arrive from different directions.

But there’s a step still to take.

If dispersing power is the organising principle, it can’t stop at constitutional reform. Democratic reform is necessary, but formal political power gets hollowed out when economic power remains sufficiently concentrated. In theory, everyone gets one vote. In practice, sufficient accumulation of wealth means your money votes for you in ways the ballot box never could: through political donations, through media ownership, through the ability to fund strategic litigation, through the simple fact that governments worry about the confidence of capital in ways they never worry about the confidence of people on a zero-hours contract. The dispersal of political power and the dispersal of economic power are the same argument. You can’t complete one without the other.

Concentrated wealth isn’t simply an inequality problem, though it is that too. It’s a power problem. When wealth compounds across generations, when returns to capital consistently outpace returns to labour, when a small number of individuals accumulate resources sufficient to shape political culture and purchase influence over public debate, that is a liberal emergency. Not a socialist one. A liberal one.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 11 Comments

Towards a third way – a reformed, liberal Palestinian party

When I welcomed a delegation of British Liberal Democrats to Jerusalem and Ramallah last week, led by Gavin Stollar OBE and the Party’s Foreign Affairs lead, Calum Miller MP, I was reminded that politics, at its best, is not a transaction but a relationship. It is built on trust, curiosity and, above all, friendship.

In a region where suspicion is often the default setting, the simple act of sitting together – listening, disagreeing respectfully, and breaking bread – can itself feel radical. Our conversations were frank. They were searching. They were, at moments, uncomfortable. And they were deeply encouraging.

I write this for Lib Dem Voice because what I encountered was not a party looking for slogans, but a movement seeking understanding. The delegation came not to lecture, nor to posture for headlines, but to ask difficult questions: What do Palestinians owe to peace? What political renewal is possible? Where does responsibility truly lie? And who, among Palestinian actors, is capable of delivering a future compatible with liberal democratic values?

Posted in Op-eds | 13 Comments

Roz Savage MP writes: Not left, Not right. Liberal.

Not Left. Not Right. Liberal.

The Green victory in the Manchester Gorton and Denton by-election should stiffen every Liberal Democrat spine.

Not because we suddenly face a new political opponent. But because it reveals something important about the electorate.

Voters are restless. They are frustrated with managerial politics. They are wary of institutions. And when they sense conviction, clarity and purpose – even if they do not agree with every detail – they respond positively.

That matters to us, and our future strategy. 

If we do not define clearly what Liberalism stands for, others will fill that space with their own narratives of change. The Manchester result is not simply about the Greens. It is about a wider hunger for something that feels principled and future-facing.

And that makes it more urgent than ever that we explain who we are.

Every few years someone tries to pin down the Liberal Democrats to a position on the traditional political spectrum. Are you left or right? Are you centrist?

It is an understandable question. British politics has trained us to see everything through that narrow lens – a straight line stretching from higher taxes to lower taxes, from big state to small state.

But that axis no longer explains the world we are living in. And it certainly does not capture what British Liberalism is about.

The word “liberal” has become slippery. Some hear it and think libertarian – no rules, no guardrails. Others assume it means American-style progressivism. Neither is correct. British Liberalism is its own tradition: rooted in liberty, fairness, community and the decentralisation of power.

If we accept the old frame, we fight on someone else’s battlefield. If we redefine it, we start telling a much more compelling story.

So what is the alternative?

Open vs Closed

The dividing line in modern politics is increasingly not economic theory but mindset.

Open politics is confident, cooperative and outward-looking. It believes Britain succeeds when we work with others, welcome new ideas, and adapt to change – to the excitement of new experiences and learning from others. It values evidence over dogma and sees diversity not as a threat but as enrichment.

Closed politics is defensive and tribal. It thrives on suspicion and nostalgia. It prefers blame to problem-solving.

That does not map neatly onto left or right. It cuts across them.

As Liberals, we are unapologetically on the side of openness – to trade, to ideas, to scrutiny, to renewal.

In Manchester, voters backed a party that projected a clear moral stance and a sense of direction. If we want to compete in that space, we must be equally clear about ours.

Power hoarded vs Power shared

If there is one axis that defines Liberalism more than any other, it is this.

Do we concentrate power in Westminster, in corporate monopolies, in unaccountable institutions? Or do we share it – and give power back to the people?

When we argue for electoral reform, we are arguing for shared political power.

When we back community energy and SMEs, we are arguing for shared economic power.

When we push for devolution, citizens’ assemblies, co-operatives and local procurement, we are saying that the people affected by decisions should shape them.

This is not technocracy. It is democratic imagination.

If we are centrists, it is purely because our belief in the individual means we are as wary of the reach of the state as we are about the clout of big business.

That instinct – sceptical of concentrated power wherever it sits – is the golden thread of British Liberalism.

And it is precisely this instinct that allows us to offer something distinctive in our winnable seats: not just protest, but power; not just anger, but agency.

Short-term vs Long-term

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 37 Comments

Lib Dem takeaways from Gorton and Denton

It would be very churlish not to congratulate Hannah Spencer and the Greens this morning. It’s a good feeling to win a by-election. Having another young, progressive woman in Parliament is so much better a result than it could have been.

The Greens did pretty much our playbook and took a seat that, in other times, we would have grabbed and we have to ask ourselves whether the strategy that allowed that to happen is one that we wish to continue.

The result was:

Green Party – 14,980 40.7%.            +28%
Reform UK – 10,578  28.7%               +15%
Labour Party – 9,364  25.4%               -25%
Conservative Party – 706 1.9%.            -6%
Liberal Democrats – 653 1.8%              -2%
Monster Raving Loony Party – 159
Advance UK – 154
Rejoin EU Party – 98
Libertarian Party – 47
Social Democratic Party – 46
Communist League – 29
The total number of votes cast was 36,814, with a voter turnout of 47.62%.

First up, this is a total and utter failure by Reform. This is the third by-election they were supposed to walk but lost after Hamilton and Caerphilly. They threw the entire contents of the luxury kitchen at it. And of course they are doing the Trump thing by complaining it was “sectarian” and stolen from them by illegal “family voting.”  Their blatant racism is unsurprising.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 71 Comments

Scottish Liberal Democrats call for measures to tackle medical misogyny

Scottish Lib Dem Women, the official Lib Dem organisation representing women, took a motion to Scottish Conference at the weekend which called on the Scottish Government to improve women’s health care.

Medical misogyny refers to the gender bias or discrimination women can experience when accessing healthcare.

Instances of medical misogyny include the dismissal of pain as “normal”, a lack of research into women’s healthcare and a general lack of understanding among many GPs.

Medical misogyny can lead to longer waiting times for gynaecological care, which have increased by more than 250% over the last seven years in Scotland.

The motion called on the Scottish Government to:

  • Launch a public awareness campaign for both medical professionals and the wider public to remove the stigma faced by women seeking help for their reproductive health.
    Improve access to diagnosis, end dismissal of symptoms and the normalisation of pain faced by women.
  • Tackle postcode lotteries of care by enhancing understanding of conditions, including but not limited to, endometriosis, the menopause, polycystic ovary syndrome, hyperemesis and ectopic pregnancies.
  • Embed a better understanding within the NHS of the effects of reproductive health conditions on period poverty, women’s mental health and women in the workplace.
  • Vastly reduce waiting times for referrals and then treatment, especially in gynaecology and urology.
  • Improve training and standards across NHS services in Scotland.
  • Increase research into reproductive health over a women’s life course, moving away from the belief that this is a ‘niche’ area.

The motion is part of the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ broader strategy to tackle misogyny and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).

The debate was emotional, thoughtful and powerful as women shared their sometimes awful experiences in accessing healthcare.

You can watch it here.

Christine Jardine said:

There are too many women who have effectively been told to put up and shut up when accessing healthcare.

There is an insidious and entrenched prejudice around women’s pain, and the cost can be devastating. It can lead to conditions being undiagnosed, to misdiagnosis and, ultimately, to an eroding confidence amongst women about the point of reporting symptoms at all.

The SNP have only added fuel to the fire: by mismanaging our NHS over two decades, they have made it much tougher to deliver the care that women need.

Progress on the women’s health plan has been slow; ministers need to step up and get on with making plans a reality.

Women deserve a system that they can trust and depend on. To build that system, we should be moving heaven and earth to increase awareness and understanding of women’s healthcare, ramp up training and research, and end the damaging waits for diagnosis and treatment.

Kirsten Herbst-Taylor from Dumfries and Galloway proposed an amendment calling for annual gynaecological screening for women. She has been living with Stage 4 Ovarian Cancer and she told Conference:

When I was diagnosed during a routine check-up at my local GP surgery, the disease was already advanced. I underwent extensive surgery and six rounds of chemotherapy.

I am here today because of the extraordinary skills of the surgical team at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh — Dr Pete Sanderson and Professor Stephen Wigmore — and because of the expertise and steady care of my oncologist, Dr Rachel Nirsimloo.

We are incredibly fortunate to have such dedication and excellence within NHS Scotland. I am deeply grateful for the treatment I have received.

But gratitude for treatment must sit alongside urgency about prevention.

In Scotland, around 600 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every year. It is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. Across the UK, fewer than half of women are diagnosed at an early stage.

Stage at diagnosis changes everything.

When ovarian cancer is detected at Stage I, around 95 percent of women survive five years or more. At Stage IV, that figure falls to around 15 percent.

That is not a marginal difference. It is the difference between life expectancy measured in decades and life expectancy measured in years.

We have national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer. We do not have one for ovarian cancer. Instead, we rely on women recognising vague symptoms and primary care identifying a rare disease early enough to alter outcomes.

That is not a systematic early detection strategy.

I am asking this conference to support the establishment of a national screening programme for ovarian and other gynaecological cancers, and to give women the entitlement to an annual gynaecological check-up, including ultrasound where clinically appropriate.

Even at Stage 4, there is hope. Treatment advances mean many women now live for years with good quality of life. But earlier diagnosis reduces the need for aggressive treatment and dramatically improves survival.

With survival at around 95 percent when ovarian cancer is detected early, and only around 15 percent at the most advanced stage, the evidence is clear: early detection saves lives. A national screening programme and annual gynaecological checks are not optional — they are necessary.

Let’s make this a reality.

Central Scotland candidate Lucy Smith told of her experience of endless visits to the doctor with abdominal pain and being dismissed. After too long, she was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease. Lucy’s experience was almost identical to that of someone I love very much and it is infuriating that both of those young women had to experience years of hell.

Beatrice Wishart MSP talked about the importance of training future doctors in these issues – asking how many women had been fitted with IUDs without pain relief, being told they would experience only slight discomfort.

Jacquie Bell spoke very movingly of her traumatic birth experience and how the refusal of her doctor to consider home birth meant that her child never had any siblings.

While my own childbirth was not nearly as traumatic, I told the Conference how I basically ran away and hid for a few hours after a male obstetrician told a midwife without reference to me to just break my waters and get on with it. I also added that every time I went to the doctor after I turned 40, no matter what with, it was put down to the menopause. And now I come to think of it, that might be why it took 3 months to get my Glandular Fever diagnosis back in 2009.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , , , , and | 1 Comment

WATCH: Alex Cole-Hamilton’s speech to Scottish Conference: Lib Dem revival will get things done

For the first time in over twenty years, the Scottish Liberal Democrats can approach the Holyrood elections with a degree of optimism. Our Conference this weekend was buzzing. Held in Dynamic Earth, a tourist attraction overlooking the Holyrood Parliament (well worth a visit if you are in Edinburgh), there was a real feeling that this was our time.

Introduced by two recent by-election winners, leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said that we were on the cusp of a huge Liberal Democrat revival and the presence of a large number of Lib Dem MSPs would mean that we would get things done. He said we were aiming to win 10 constituencies, up from four, and gain on the peach ballot.

Watch here:

The full text is below:

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | Leave a comment

British, northern, not leaving

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

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

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

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

I was raised in Bolton, making me a Boltonian

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

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

That should alarm anyone who believes in equal citizenship.

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

History has shown us that, again and again.

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

Posted in Op-eds | 29 Comments

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

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

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

A smaller department for public expenditure would control departmental spending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in News and Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 36 Comments

UPDATED: Jim Wallace’s funeral takes place in Kirkwall

UPDATE: A brief reflection on the service that took place earlier today.  If you knew and admired Jim, and haven’t seen it, it will be up for a while here.  I’m not going to tell you too much about it, but there were some stories that illustrate Jim perfectly, from the things he was excellent at, grace and kindness being mentioned a lot, to the things he was less good at. It sounds like he might have been less good at DIY than I am and that’s saying something.  And there are some things you might be surprised to learn. 

His brother Neil gave the most perfect tribute, as requested by Jim a few days before he went into hospital for his operation.  The best euologies are crafted so that you are lifted from sadness with laughter and this was no exception. There was one point where I was about to dissolve into tears and then he said something really funny and everyone laughed. 

Liam McArthur told us about their long working relationship, which started in a noisy pub in Edinburgh Waverley station. Alistair Carmichael shared his one abiding memory of Jim, which may surprise you. It will not be what you think, but in other ways, it will be exactly what you think. 

It is a very fitting summary of a life lived with  love, empathy, kindness,  ferocious intellect, modesty and humour with liberalism at its core. We’ll all be raising a glass to Jim tonight, I expect.

Many Lib Dems have been heading north to Kirkwall over the past couple of days for Jim Wallace’s funeral whihc takes place in the beautiful St Mgnus’ Cathedral in Orkney today.

Theer have been a few photographs of people stopping to campaign with Highland candidates David Green and Neil Alexander on the way, and no doubt we’ll see the same tomorrow as people make the return journey.

Our thoughts are very much with JIm’s wife Rosie, daughters Helen and Clare and brother Neil and all those who were close to Jim.

The service will be livestreamed here

Christine Murdoch and I thought it might be a good idea to open a Zoom room for those of us who will be watching online. We might need a gentle space where we can have a cup of tea and a chat afterwards. If you want to join us between 1 and 2, email [email protected] for the link.

Alistair Carmichael paid tribute to Jim in an article for Politics Home which you can read here. He said:

Posted in News | Also tagged , and | Leave a comment
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Adam
    Well, LibDemVoice keeps posting articles about the need to be "radical", so maybe a radical move might be to stop being one of only 4 countries in the world tha...
  • Jenny Barnes
    What sort of taxes? Well, given the need for a some fossil fuel demand destruction for 1) supply loss from Hormuz closure and 2) risk of excessive global temp ...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "The land registry should already have areas for each holding." According to https://www.landregistry.org.uk/faq/ "Not all land is registered, and there ...
  • Peter Davies
    Exact valuation of land is difficult as in most areas it is seldom sold as a separate entity. Initially it should be introduced at a very low rate so inaccuraci...
  • Nonconformistradical
    Land Value Tax - on what basis should land be valued and how much work would there be in carrying out the valuation across the country?...