Tag Archives: featured

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Vince is wrong about Gorton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liam McArthur’s tribute to Jim Wallace

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

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

The text is below:

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

A toast to the lassies!

One of the highlights of the Edinburgh Lib Dems social calendar is the South Edinburgh Burns Supper which I’ve been going to for probably 15 years now.

I have seen Alex Cole-Hamilton dressed as a mouse being chased by one time LDV contributor John Knox reciting the programme To a Mouse. I kid you not.

It’s always guaranteed to be a good night. If you are ever in Edinburgh, the food at Mortonhall Golf Club is brilliant and the bar prices are incredibly reasonable for a city venue.

I thought you might be interested in reading the Toast to the Lassies by Scottish Campaigns and Candidates Convener Charles Dundas and the reply, which I’ll post tomorrow, by Scottish Convener Jenni Lang.  There’s a lot of relevant political observation amidst the gentle roasting.

One person very much on all of our minds was Jim Wallace. I was relieved to be able to spend time with the Lib Dem family as we come to terms with his sudden loss. Everyone had so much love and admiration for him and there were few dry eyes in the house when Jenni Lang talked about him in her reply.

Anyway, enjoy Charles’ toast. His fears of imminent cancellation are premature, I feel.

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

Jim Wallace has died

I know that everyone reading this will be as shocked and sad as I am to hear of the terrible news that Jim Wallace, a giant of this Party, died today. We send our love to his wife Rosie, and his daughters Helen and Clare.

Jim’s death was announced by Alex Cole-Hamilton:

The Scottish Liberal Democrats today announce with great sadness the passing of Jim Wallace, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, former Deputy First Minister of Scotland and a towering figure of modern Scottish liberalism.

Jim Wallace was born in Dumfriesshire and educated at Annan Academy before attending Cambridge and Edinburgh universities. He was called to the bar in 1979, practising mainly in civil law cases, and became a QC in 1997.

Jim was elected to parliament in 1983 as MP for Orkney & Shetland, succeeding Jo Grimond, and held the seat for 18 years, earning a formidable reputation as a diligent constituency champion and a respected voice at Westminster. After becoming leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, he led the party through the Scottish devolution referendum in 1997, having also been a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which created the blueprint for devolution and a Scottish Parliament.

Upon the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Jim was elected as MSP for Orkney and became Deputy First Minister of Scotland, serving in government from 1999 to 2005. He became acting First Minister while Donald Dewar underwent heart surgery in April 2000, after Dewar’s death in October 2000 and again following the resignation of Henry McLeish in 2001.

He also held the roles of Minister for Justice and later Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, playing a central role in the early years of devolution and helping to shape Scotland’s modern political settlement. He also established a world-leading freedom of information regime.

He entered the House of Lords in 2007 as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, where he remained an authoritative and thoughtful contributor on constitutional, legal and Scottish affairs, including serving five years as Advocate General for Scotland.

Jim also served as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from 2021 to 2022.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, who worked for our MSPs in the Scottish Parliament when Jim was leader, said:

Jim Wallace was one of the architects of modern Scotland and one of the finest liberals our party has ever produced.

He believed deeply in devolution as a way to give people better services and more control over their own lives and he lived a life of public service right up until the end.

For me personally, he was a mainstay of support throughout my adult life. Even as he went into hospital for the final time, he was still sending me words of advice and I will always try to live up to the standards he set.

Throughout his career, Jim was widely respected across party lines for his integrity, calm judgement and deep belief in liberal values: fairness, the rule of law and respect for communities, no matter how remote.

Scotland is a better country because of Jim Wallace, and the Liberal Democrats are a better party because of his example.

Alistair Carmichael, Jim’s succsssor as MP for Orkney & Shetland, said:

Jim Wallace gave his adult life to serving the people of the Northern Isles, Scotland and the United Kingdom. His sudden and tragic death leaves a huge gap in public life. For those of us who knew him as a friend and for his family that gap is one that we shall struggle ever to fill.

In the world of politics, having people on whom you can truly depend is a rare and precious thing. For me, Jim was someone who was there through good times and bad and I am bereft at his passing. I shall miss his acute political analysis, his warm and occasionally waspish wit and, most of all, his easy company and friendship. He was never someone for whom I had to present a front.

My thoughts are with his wife Rosie, his daughters Helen and Clare, his mother and his brother Neil who I know are heartbroken at this moment. I hope that they may eventually take some comfort from the knowledge that the man that they loved in their family was loved by so many others too.

Liam McArthur, Jim’s successor as MSP for Orkney, said:

Posted in News | Also tagged | 6 Comments

Ed Davey on Kuenssberg: Lib Dems have a moral obligation to win

Ed Davey did his traditional start of year interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg this morning. The conversation started with Donald Trump backing down on his disgraceful comments about British troops in Afghanistan.

Ed said he was grateful to the King for his intervention but said that this didn’t change his view of Donald Trump who has supported Putin on Ukraine.

They moved on to discuss defence spending. Ed acknowledged that we do need to act.

Liberal Democrats have argued that we need to increase defence spending. We’ve called on the Government to issue war bonds. The Government hasn’t shown how to increase defence spending by the end of the decade.

We’re in a cold war type scenario.

We need to increase defence spending quickly.

There has to be a question on whether we can rely on the US. With Trump in the White House they are no longer a reliable ally.

Kuenssberg asked him how this would work? Was it Govt borrowing with a fancy name on it?

Ed said that  we should do this over two years and  cap it at £20 billion

Institutional investors and public would be able to buy these to give the  defence industry needs to know that the money is behind it to make plans.

So let’s just step away from the interview for a moment. This seems to be another example of a new policy being announced – a bit like the 7 day guarantee for GP appointments – without any sort of due process in the party. There have been plenty opportunities to talk about, to consult on such an idea internally. Given the amount of surprise I am picking up in the party about today’s announcement, I feel that this could have been handled better

It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but there are ways of ensuring that there is buy-in from the party before making an announcement like this. Then you avoid people feeling like they are being disrespected. There have been concerns about power being grabbed to the centre with no accountability for some time.

Back to the interview now, Ed said that there were other things we need to do on defence given the dramatic changes since the last election which requires a step change. He wants to see things like pushing the Joint Expeditionary Force further and faster and invite Canada to join it.

Kuenssberg asked him whether  we were avoiding a conversation on the amount we are spending on welfare and the NHS

Ed replied:

We are up for these conversations. We have talked about a digital services tax, a European rearmanent bank and we have called for cross party talks on how we get (defence spending) up to 3.5% beyond 2030.

Ed has been pretty bullish on his language on Trump, much more than Starmer has been. Kuenssberg asked him if he would be the same if  he were PM. Would he call him a bully and an international gangster

My language might be a bit more nuanced but my approach would be the same.

He highlighted areas where the UK Government could do more, such as rejoining the Customs Union.

How did Trump back down on Greenland? EU standing together with a bazooka of retaliatory measures.

Trump is so unpredictable. I really worry for America – he is doing huge damage to their economy and their world standing.

He was then challenged on our glacially improving poll ratings and the fact that we have only a third or so of the members of Reform and the Greens. – we have ten times the number of MPs but Green at 170,000 and Reform on 210,000. Ed pretty much said he didn’t care about either.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 29 Comments

William Wallace writes… Defending Liberal Democracy against populist powers

As we watch Donald Trump knock down the checks and balances built into the US constitution to constrain the powers of executive Presidents, with the acquiescence of the Republican Party,  we need to think hard – and campaign about – the absence of similar checks within our own system of government.  Britain’s unwritten constitution has rested, as Peter Hennessy famously said, on the ‘good chaps’ theory of constitutional behaviour: that no political leader who won a majority in the House of Commons would ever behave in an ungentlemanly fashion.  Across Europe as well as in the USA we’re now learning that populist leaders are not gentlemen.  So we must be out there making the case against unlimited populist government and for reforms to strengthen constitutional liberal democracy.

Reform of our over-centralised political institutions is at last creeping from the realm of political nerds into the field of active discussion.  That’s partly because of a rising awareness that the outcome of the next election could become a constitutional crisis – either a Commons without any party large enough to form a government on its own or with only one coalition partner, or a party with a majority of seats elected on less than a third of those voting.  It’s partly because we face a crisis of public distrust in national politics, with surveys showing much higher levels here than in comparable European democracies.  And it’s partly that Britain is evidently suffering from an over-centralised state, in which the Prime Minister now struggles to with so many issues at once that long-term thinking is impossible.

Asked to contribute the other week to a discussion at the annual conference of the Institute for Government (the leading think tank on Whitehall, central government and public services), Andy Burnham argued that ‘we need to reform Westminster to bring about the reform of Whitehall.’.  Our first-past-the-post electoral system, he went on, builds in a two-party system that rests on staged confrontation between government and its institutionalised opposition.  The Whips’ control of government business and the majority party’s MPs stifles critical and constructive debate and inhibits cross-party cooperation.  The Financial Times published a letter last Friday on similar lines.  A list of City leaders set out ‘the economic case for coalition government’, arguing that ‘the see-saw of policies’ which accompanies the constant shuffling of ministers in this ‘era of politics as a blood sport’ deters investment and damages business confidence.  The FT followed up with a full-page weekend article by Andy Haldane declaring that ‘the public has lost faith in the political system’ and asking ‘Has Britain become ungovernable?’

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 9 Comments

Josh Babarinde writes…. Trump can go f**k himself

There are moments that demand we speak plainly. 

The moment that Trump demeaned and mocked the sacrifices of our troops is one of them. 

It is time we recognise this moment for what it is, and move together as a party and as a country to meet it.

Donald Trump has accused NATO forces in Afghanistan of having “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” It is time for an uncomfortable truth. This man is no friend of Britain, and we must stop pretending that he is.

Our armed forces personnel stand ready, if necessary, to lay down their lives for our security. There is no higher calling. And those who answer that call, those who brace themselves to face dangers most of us will never know, deserve our eternal gratitude and a clear promise: that we will never forget, and we will never allow their service to be disrespected.

Afghanistan was the only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 was invoked. And it was invoked for America, after the attacks of September 11th.

We answered the call. We sent our troops because when your ally is attacked, you stand with them. That’s what the alliance – and the special relationship – has meant to us. That’s what we believed America meant. It is that type of internationalism that our party has always defended, and what makes me so proud to be a Liberal Democrat. 

But we must be clear about who in Britain still lacks the courage to stand up. Nigel Farage could only muster that Trump’s comments were “not quite fair.” Not quite fair. 

As if hundreds of British deaths were a matter of fairness, as if this were anything less than disrespect of their memory. That cowardice tells us everything we need to know about the choice before our country. 

Populists have tried to claim ownership of patriotism and we must take it back.

Real patriotism isn’t wrapping yourself in a flag while tearing down your neighbours. It isn’t exploiting people’s fears or looking to divide communities.

Real patriotism is what our armed forces showed when they deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere. It’s what their families showed when they said goodbye at RAF Brize Norton, not knowing if they would ever see them again.

Posted in News | Also tagged , , , and | 22 Comments

The Emperor’s New Clothes

How deliciously ironic that the popular folktale The Emperor’s New Clothes was written by a Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen. How apposite is that tale today? A slow-witted narcissist is easily duped and, because he is believed to be a powerful emperor, no one is willing to challenge him and point out what a fool he is being. Trump is undoubtedly a fool, but he is constantly emboldened by the dithering appeasement of most world leaders, while the functioning malevolent minds of Putin and Xi quietly look on with delight.

Whether it’s from fawning, fear or flippancy the world can no longer pander to this great blustering bully and his dangerous nonsense. For some time now I have been wanting for a small child to step from the crowd as Trump goes by and shout out, “But that man’s talking bollocks!”

Far from being a small child, today, we may have found a fearless voice willing to speak out on the world stage. Mark Carney, speaking in Davos, has clearly set out what a Liberal approach could look like. It is beholden on those of us who agree that a safe and peaceful world, can only be secured by fairness, respect and the rule of international law to boldly stand with Carney and join our voices in a resounding cry of “enough!”

His was no dewy-eyed nostalgia, hankering after a golden age that never was. If Trump has achieved anything, it is that that old ship has sailed, and sunk! Liberals, and indeed all people who believe in reason and dialogue, must move forward to a better future while there is still any future to hope for.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 16 Comments

Why banning social media for children misses the point

The Government is  considering following Australia’s lead with a blanket ban on social media for under-16s. It’s a move that will appeal to anxious parents and play well in focus groups. It also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both the problem and the solution.

This isn’t to dismiss legitimate concerns about children’s online experiences. The evidence on mental health impacts is real and concerning, particularly for young people already vulnerable. Algorithmic amplification of harmful content, cyberbullying, and the manipulation of attention through addictive design features cause genuine harm. Parents are right to worry.

But a ban throws the baby out with the bathwater. It looks decisive whilst avoiding the harder work of actually fixing anything, and in the process, eliminates the genuine benefits alongside the harms.

The practical problems are obvious

Age verification technology remains unreliable and privacy-invasive. Australia’s ban, which only came into effect this month, relies on platforms policing themselves – the same platforms that have consistently failed to enforce their existing age limits. VPNs and workarounds are readily available to any teenager with basic digital literacy, which is to say, most of them.

More fundamentally, a ban creates an unregulated underground. When young people inevitably access social media anyway, they’ll do so without adult guidance or support, less likely to report problems or seek help when things go wrong. We’ve seen this pattern before with abstinence-only approaches to sex education and drug policy: restricting access doesn’t eliminate risk, it just pushes it into the shadows.

But the deeper issue is one of rights and autonomy

Children and young people are not simply adults-in-waiting, passive recipients of adult protection. They are rights-holders under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the right to freedom of expression and access to information. These rights don’t disappear because we’re uncomfortable with how they’re being exercised.

For many young people, particularly those who are LGBTQ+, disabled, from minority backgrounds, or geographically isolated, online spaces provide crucial community, information, and support that may not exist in their immediate physical environment. Social media is also where civic life increasingly happens. Youth climate activism, political organising, and public discourse occur online. Excluding an entire age group from these spaces is excluding them from democratic participation at precisely the age when political consciousness typically develops. We can’t simultaneously lament young people’s disengagement from politics whilst banning them from the primary forum where political conversation occurs.

What would actually work?

The answer isn’t another badly designed law, it’s properly addressing the actual problem: platform business models that profit from harm. None of these proposals are untested fantasies – elements exist in various jurisdictions – but nowhere has implemented them comprehensively or with adequate enforcement.

Rather than banning access, we should be banning the business model. That means:

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 17 Comments

Time for Lib Dems to stop using X/Twitter?

Back in 2008 when I first joined, Twitter was a lifeline for me. I had Glandular Fever which knocked me out for months and it was incredibly isolating. But here was a community of people I could communicate with in real time, many of whom became friends in real life.

There was the Formula 1 crowd. My life was made when then Brawn driver Rubens Barrichello replied to me.

Of course there were the growing community of Lib Dems – and Jo Swinson was quickly recognised for her authentic use of the platform not just as a broadcast mechanism, but a means of engagement.

Back then, it was truly fun, though looking back, I can’t believe I did one of these things:

Where else, before you’ve even got out of bed in the morning can you:

discover that the Lib Dems have won a by election in St Austell and Newquay, where Tory PPC Caroline Righton recently smeared Liberal Democrat candidate Stephen Gilbert;

give Nadine Dorries some advice on how to tweet pictures from her Blackberry (not in the same league as my friend Sarah (@soggous) who recently helped Jenson Button’s girlfriend fix her Mac, mind you);

engage in intelligent discourse about the relative merits and demerits of Google Wave which included the phrase, from Charlotte Gore, “It’s collaborative, rich media, non-linear communications!”?

However, in recent years, it has become a much darker, more sinister place where dangerous misinformation and prejudice is spread with impunity.  This week, confirmation of a new low came.

From The Guardian:

The posts offer a new level of detail on how the images are generated and shared on X, with users coaching one another on prompts; suggesting iterations on Grok’s presentations of women in lingerie or swimsuits, or with areas of their body covered in semen; and asking Grok to remove outer clothing in replies to posts containing self-portraits by female users.

Among hundreds of posts identified by Nana Nwachukwu as direct, nonconsensual requests for Grok to remove or replace clothing, dozens reviewed by the Guardian show users posting pictures of women including celebrities, models, stock photos and women who are not public figures posing in snapshots.

While the platform later clarified it would limit this facility to paid users, this really is not enough. Think about it? You can abuse women’s privacy if you can afford to pay a relatively small sum per month.  That is not ok.

All this was too much for the UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee who announced that it would be withdrawing from the site. The Committee’s vice chair, our own Christine Jardine has also left as reported in The Guardian:

Another, the Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine, said she was leaving the platform, calling the images generated by Grok “the last straw”.

Jardine said she had taken the view that X was a good way to communicate with constituents. “But I cannot in all conscience continue to use a platform which seems unwilling to act against this grossly offensive and abusive online behaviour towards women and girls,” she said.

In the past couple of days, Lib Dem MPs including Lee Dillon, Martin Wrigley, Tom Morrison, Vikki Slade, Caroline Voaden, Danny Chambers have said that they won’t be posting any more.

Our Mark Pack used a House of Lords question tochallenge the Government to reduce its use of X.

This is the first post in probably 15 years where my Twitter profile has not been linked to my profile on here. I have severely cut back on my Twitter use in recent years and hardly ever post, preferring Bluesky instead.Similarly, at Lib Dem Voice we have been winding down our use of X and preferring our Bluesky profile instead.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 20 Comments

Vince Cable writes….Tech and Trump

The British government has been scrambling to keep up with the outrageous behaviour of the rogue superstate which happens to be our main ally and with which we claim to have a ‘special relationship’. Keir Starmer says that he had no warning of the attack on Venezuela which suggests that he has clean hands but no influence. 

A subject much closer to Britain’s long term vital interests are forthcoming negotiations with the Trump Administration on technology. These talks will determine whether Britain is to be a digital and AI colony or retains some vestiges of sovereignty.

They affect our freedom to levy taxes.  They affect our freedom to manage the flow of sewage contained in social media content being defended as ‘free speech’. They complicate any move to realign regulations with the EU. Furthermore, the allegiance of the leading tech companies to the Trump Administration makes any commercial deal highly political. And geo-political too since we are being pressed to choose between the two superpowers.

The pending negotiations build on the Economic Prosperity Deal under which the USA agreed to reduce Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs to the baseline 10% (rather than the EU’s 15%) in return for various UK concessions. One concession was accepting a ‘poison pill’ limiting agreements with ‘non-market’ economies (ie China). 

The next stage is a Technology Prosperity Deal which promises more digital infrastructure investment in the UK in return for more UK concessions on policy. The USA objects to the UK 2% digital sales tax and to the UK On-line Safety Act which is said unfairly to constrain US AI companies. Other irritants have included British demands under the Investigatory Powers Act, for Apple to break its end-to-end encryption.

Britain has a high dependence on US tech companies. Britain’s digital economy accounts for around 13% of GDP (manufacturing is around 9%). The digital economy in turn depends largely on the platforms and services of US tech companies.  The new growth area is AI where US companies also dominate.

Dependence stems from the power of the algorithms used by the tech companies which can be manipulated to slant output to serve the interests of owners or the ideological prejudices of the Trump administration. The opaque decision-making processes of AI make subtle manipulation easier. The sheer complexity of AI also makes it easier to lock users into platforms which then become embedded and difficult to replace. 

In principle, users have the option of using competitive alternatives which, in practice, are Chinese: platforms like Alibaba or Deep Seek for AI. But Chinese companies have difficulty meeting privacy regulations; and there are security and geo-political concerns. In any event the UK has already conceded to the USA an effective veto over Chinese involvement. 

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 4 Comments

Ed Davey’s New Year Message

Ed Davey’s New Year message came out when we were on our break, but, for the sake of completeness, here is his video, a kind of Lib Dem Wrapped. An unusual choice to give Kemi Badenoch a cameo, but then she was telling everyone how we get the church roof fixed, something which will, we suspect, never get old.

Enjoy!

Posted in News | Also tagged | 1 Comment

Coalition Government again?

Just before the Christmas recess I sat down in the Commons cafeteria opposite a Conservative front-bencher whom I knew.  ‘There will have to be a coalition after the next election,’ he told me, ‘bringing you together with Labour and the Greens.’  I realised after absorbing this that he was effectively telling me that the Conservatives could not revive in time to hope for a majority, and that the prospect of either a Reform majority or a Tory-Reform coalition gave him nightmares.

It’s 3½ years at most until the next general election.  Plenty of crises and shifts in political moods may intervene to alter the pattern that opinion polls and local by-elections have indicated over the past year – of five parties between 10% and 30% in England, with six or more competitive in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.  But it’s wise to anticipate the likelihood of an indecisive outcome.  We would probably then have to negotiate – and successfully manage – a multiparty government.  The current Labour Government is floundering in large part because the campaign it fought to win its majority did not provide it with the programme needed for successful government in difficult domestic and international circumstances.  The circumstances that will face the incoming government – of whatever colours – in 2029 are likely to be even more difficult than in 2024.

Many readers of LibDem Voice will groan at the thought of entering another coalition.  But we’re in politics to promote liberal principles, and the most effective way to promote them is to be in power, locally and nationally.  So we need to learn lessons from the 2010-15 coalition and from earlier attempts to cooperate with other parties.

To start with, we need to admit that Liberals are instinctively too inclined to trust others, to be optimistic about outcomes and to believe in rational negotiation. David Steel was naively confident that Callaghan would reward the support we offered his shaky government in 1977-8.   In 1996-8 Paddy Ashdown was far too trusting of Tony Blair, not appreciating the hard and partisan men behind him.  Nick Clegg set out to demonstrate that coalition government would work, without being sufficiently suspicious of those behind Cameron who wanted to push through their Conservative agenda while leaving the Liberal Democrats to take as much of the blame as possible.  Next time we have to be harder, more suspicious and more politically partisan.

In the 2010 coalition government the 53 Liberal Democrat MPs served to close the small gap between the 306 Tory seats and an overall majority: too much of an imbalance to stop most Conservative ministers behaving as if they were still the majority party, let alone to change significantly the working methods of Downing Street, Whitehall and Westminster.  Parliamentary numbers matter enormously in our flawed political system.  If no party in the government has much above 200 MPs, and we have gained well over 100, we will be better placed from the outset.  Winning more seats is a necessary precondition for effective shared government.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 49 Comments

Ed Davey’s Christmas message

Here is Ed Davey’s Christmas message.

With that, we will bow out for our own Christmas break. We will be back briefly at the weekend, but our plan is to take a proper break and see you again on 2 January.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 6 Comments

Alex Cole-Hamilton’s Christmas message

Scottish Lib Dem Leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has released his Christmas message:

First of all I would like to thank all of those in our emergency services and those in the military who cannot spend Christmas with their lived ones because they are on duty today. You have our thanks, stay safe.

It’s been a massively successful year for the Scottish Liberal Democrats. From pushing for action on long mental health waits and the closure of care homes, to delivering progress on the Edinburgh Eye Pavilion and the Belford Hospital in Fort William, I am so proud of how my party gets stuck in and gets stuff done. That’s what Scottish Liberal Democrats are all about.

It was with that energy and ambition that we kicked off our spring conference in Inverness, welcoming the former Conservative MSP Jamie Greene into our ranks. Jamie’s decision struck a chord with all those people who are frustrated with the Conservative Party as it lurches to extremes and apes the likes of Nigel Farage. Sensible, moderate voters – who perhaps took a chance on Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives – deserve better than this.

In every corner of Scotland, people deserve a party that will restore decency to our politics, that will fight for them on the issues that matter – that’s what you get with the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

It is now just over 100 sleeps until the Scottish election: a chance to get the change Scotland truly needs – a change of government.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 1 Comment

ALDC’s by-election report – 11 December 2025

4 parallel white vertical lines on orange background ALDC logoThis week, there were nine local council by-elections, from all over the country. Three local by-elections did not have a Liberal Democrat candidate.

We start in the Highlands, where wewere able to gain this seat, at the expense of the SNP. Congratulations are due to Councillor Matthew Prosser and the local team for winning this seat.

Highland Council, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
First preferences:
Liberal Democrats (Matthew Prosser): 925 (40.5%)
SNP: 665 (29.1%)
Reform UK: 220 (9.6%)
Green Party: 216 (9.4%)
Conservative: 175 (7.6%)
Labour: 87 (3.8%)

Liberal Democrats GAIN from SNP
Elected at Stage 5

Turnout: 25.9%

In the Central Belt, Reform successfully gained this seat, for their first Scottish electoral victory. Thank you to Dougie Butler and the local team for flying the Liberal Democrat flag.

West Lothian Council, Whitburn and Blackburn
First preferences:
Reform UK: 1177 (32.0%)
SNP: 1028 (28.0%)
Labour: 627 (17.1%)
Independent (Lynch): 484 (13.2%)
Conservative: 129 (3.5%)
Liberal Democrats (Douglas Butler): 102 (2.8%)
Green Party: 101 (2.7%)
Independent (Millar): 27 (0.7%)

Reform UK GAIN from Labour
Elected at Stage 8

Turnout: 22.2%


In the Tees Valley, there were two by-elections this week, yet only one had a Liberal Democrat candidate. In Darlington, Reform were able to gain this seat off Labour, with us and the Tories finishing in joint second place. Thank you to Simon Thorley and the local team for flying the Liberal Democrat flag.

Darlington Borough Council, Red Hall and Lingfield
Reform UK: 341 (37.7%, new)
Conservative: 157 (17.3%, -22.5)
Liberal Democrats (Simon Thorley): 157 (17.3%, new)
Labour: 152 (16.8%, -37.1)
Green Party: 89 (9.8%, +3.6)
Independent: 9 (1.0%, new)

Reform UK GAIN from Labour

Turnout: 27.47%


In the West Midlands, the Conservatives successfully defended their seat. Thank you to Morag Maclean and the local team for winning this seat/flying the Liberal Democrat flag.

Lichfield District Council, Armitage with Handsacre
Conservative: 630 (46.7%, -6.3)
Reform UK: 431 (31.9%, new)
Labour: 127 (9.4%, -23.5)
Liberal Democrats (Morag Maclean): 99 (7.3%, -6.8)
Green Party: 63 (4.7%, new)

Conservative HOLD

Turnout: 22.43%


Moving south, we turn to the Welsh Valleys, where a local by-election was prompted by the outcome of the recent Senedd by-election. Plaid Cymru were able to comfortably hold this seat. Thank you to Mary Lloyd and the local team for flying the Liberal Democrat flag.

Caerphilly County Borough Council, Penyrheol
Plaid Cymru: 956 (60.1%, +6.3)
Reform UK: 422 (26.5%, new)
Labour: 114 (7.2%, -24.4)
Conservative: 66 (4.2%, -10.4)
Liberal Democrats (Mary Lloyd): 32 (2.0%, new)

Plaid Cymru HOLD

Turnout: 16.3%


In East Devon, we were able to gain a seat at the expense of the Conservatives, who were attempting to defend this seat, which they won in 2023, but the resigned councillor had since become independent. Congratulations to Councillor Steve Hunt and the local team for this decisive victory.

East Devon District Council, Seaton
Liberal Democrats (Steve Hunt): 789 (41.3%, +21.2)
Reform UK: 565 (29.6%, new)
Conservative: 400 (20.9%, -9.5)
Independent: 156 (8.2%, new)

Liberal Democrats GAIN from Conservative

Turnout: 33.4%


The results for the three by-elections which had no Liberal Democrat candidates are below.

South Kesteven District Council, Aveland
Reform UK: 290 (41.0%, +26.5)
Conservative: 280 (39.5%, +19.0)
Green Party: 115 (16.2%, new)
Labour: 23 (3.2%, new)

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 14 Comments

Three new Lib Dem Peers announced – and two more get to stay

Three new Lib Dem peers have been announced today.

Party Chief Exec Mike Dixon, Ed Davey’s Chief of Staff Rhiannon Leaman and former MP and winner of an epic by-election in Brent East Sarah Teather will be joining our Group in the House of Lords in the very near future. Sarah was also Children’s Minister during the first couple of years of the Coalition Government.

In addition, two of our hereditary peers, who would otherwise have been kicked out, get to stay. Dominic Addington and John Russell, have also been granted life peerages so they can continue their important contributions to Parliament after the Hereditary Peers Bill passes.

John Russell is the Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Energy and Climate Change, Dominic Addington is the Liberal Democrat Disabilities Spokesperson; is a passionate campaigner on special educational needs and disability; and is reported to be the most active peer in the entire House of Lords.

But on to the newbies:

Sarah Teather won a stunning by-election victory to become MP for Brent East in 2003, before serving as Children’s Minister between 2010 and 2012 where she led the way in doubling the pupil premium targeted at children from deprived backgrounds.

Rhiannon Leaman has served as Jo Swinson’s and then Ed Davey’s Chief of Staff since 2019.

Mike Dixon has served as Chief Executive since 2019, overseeing the transformation of the party that helped deliver four by-election wins and a record number of MPs.

Both Mike Dixon and Rhiannon Leaman will continue in their current roles for the party.

You can find out more about them here.

Ed said of the new three peers:

Posted in News | 10 Comments

Jury trial is not a luxury or a quirky tradition

For over 20 years, I have stood in cramped cells and worn-out courtrooms, watching the state line up against the individual. I’ve seen frightened teenagers, exhausted mothers, people who made bad choices and people who were wrongly accused. Throughout it all, one thing has kept our justice system feeling fair: when it really mattered, ordinary people had the final say.

Twelve strangers, chosen from the community, sitting together as a jury.

Now, a Labour Government that claims to be “on the side of the many” is quietly pushing that safeguard towards the exit.

Last week, more than 100 lawyers warned the Ministry of Justice that Labour’s plan to drastically cut jury trials is a serious mistake.

In simple terms, the proposal is this: keep juries only for the very worst crimes—like murder and rape—and move a huge range of other serious offences to be decided by a judge alone. At the same time, they want to give more power to magistrates’ courts, which we already know produce some of the most unequal outcomes, especially for Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants.

And the reason given? The backlog of cases.

Yes, the backlog is real. Cases drag on for years, witnesses move away, memories fade, victims lose hope. But let’s be clear: juries didn’t create this backlog. It was created by political choices—court closures, crumbling buildings, cuts to legal aid, and fewer sitting days. Now, instead of fixing the problems, Labour wants to remove one of the foundations of our justice system.

When I talk to my clients about juries, even the most cynical ones understand. They might not trust judges or politicians, but they value the idea that “people like us” are in the room—a local builder, a teaching assistant, a retired nurse.

Take juries away from most serious cases, and you don’t just change who decides—you change how justice feels. It stops being justice with the public and starts being justice done to the public.

What’s especially frustrating is that Labour should know better. David Lammy’s 2017 review showed that juries were one of the few parts of the system that treated minority ethnic defendants fairly. The big problems were elsewhere—in policing, charging, magistrates’ courts, and sentencing. Having seen clear proof that juries work, Labour’s response seems to be: “Let’s cut them.”

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 10 Comments

What are Lib Dems saying about the Budget?

I don’t know if you feel the same, but it seems to me that this is the longest run-up to a Budget that I can remember.  We’ve been talking about it forever. At times the Government’s communications around Rachel Reeves’ second budget have made the Omnishambles Budget of 2012 look competent.

First we were raising income tax rates then we weren’t, the Black Hole in the country’s finances has been of varying sizes and suddenly there now seems to be billions down the back of the sofa to stave off a break in the manifesto promise.

I don’t mind paying more tax. In fact, if I want decent public services and to tackle poverty,  I think a household on our income should be paying significantly more than we are. I really hope that our reaction to today’s announcements is more than “Aaaargh…..tax.”

So what do Lib Dems want to see from the Budget?

We’re looking for energy bills to be cut, cutting VAT for hospitality and getting a better deal with the European Union. We quite like the increase in the minimum wage, but we want to see more opportunities for businesses to grow as Treasury Spokesperson Daisy Cooper said:

Increasing the minimum wage is always welcome news for millions of low-paid workers but unless businesses are able to grow, there is a danger that this will result in fewer jobs being available overall.

The government must make people’s money go further by slashing energy bills, boosting our high streets with a cut to VAT for hospitality until 2027, and going for growth with a better deal with Europe.

We’ve opposed the two child benefit cap brought in by the Conservatives from the start so we should welcome its abolition.

After Lib Dem instigated research from the House of Commons Library showed that the costs of Brexit to the nation, namely a staggering £90 billion in tax revenue in 2024/25, Scottish spokesperson Susan Murray said:

The economy is at a standstill. Despite years of promises from the Conservatives and now Labour to kickstart growth and clamp down on crushing household bills, the British people are facing a cost-of-living permacrisis and yet more betrayals from those in charge.

The Government must not load struggling households or high streets with yet more tax rises to pay for its own mistakes. Rachel Reeves must take bold action to slash the cost of living, rescue our high streets, and start fixing the mess left by Brexit – by negotiating a new Customs Union with the EU, to grow our economy and bring in tens of billions for the Exchequer.

Anything else would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty.

Steve Darling, our DWP Spokesperson, has been talking about the impact of freezing tax thresholds on pensioners. I agree with him that we need to worry about those on the lowest incomes having to find extra money because they’ve been dragged into income tax.

This is a stealth tax bombshell that will hit pensioners hard, leaving those affected £800 a year worse off – and Labour is poised to make that nightmare even worse.

Rachel Reeves once called extending these tax thresholds a policy that would ‘hurt working people’. Now it’s clear she’s getting ready to copy the economic vandalism of the past.

The Chancellor must stand by her word, rule out an extension to this outrageous tax freeze at the Budget, and stop hammering pensioners who have already been left out in the cold by skyrocketing energy prices and the disastrous Winter Fuel Payment scandal.

According to a blog post from Independent Age for Equal Pay Day, many of  the poorest older people are women so it is improtant that we take an intersectional approach to this:

While poverty affects almost two million of all older people across the UK, older women are disproportionately impacted. Behind closed doors and on fixed incomes, hundreds of thousands of older women are finding it harder to make ends meet. The statistics are stark:

Poverty among older women is projected to rise from 20% in 2022 to 26% by 2040
Women aged 55 to 59 have 48% less private pension wealth than men in the same group
Older women too often face a future shaped not by rest and recognition, but by rising costs, shrinking incomes and a system they feel overlooks them. At Independent Age, we are determined to ensure that all older people in financial hardship receive better support which they are entitled to.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 10 Comments

What happened to wealth tax?

There are few issues which animate both the super-rich and the political Left more than the notion of a wealth tax. The idea has been championed by the French Left: a 2% levy would be levied on the roughly 0.01% of household assets worth over 100 mn. Euros. Britain’s Green Party has also adopted it as a signature policy. There is a global version of the same idea promoted by Brazil’s President Lula.

For populist politicians, a wealth tax has a double appeal: it can, in theory, promote greater equality and ‘fairness’, and, also in theory, raise a lot of money for public services. Theory and practice have however diverged.

A wealth tax is unlikely to be in the coming UK budget despite advocacy by Neil Kinnock, leading trades unions and others. Indeed, it is being abandoned by governments including those with a social democratic, redistributive agenda: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Sweden. They found that the tax was difficult to operate, easily avoided and raised disappointing amounts. Only Norway, Spain and Swiss cantons retain a comprehensive wealth tax.

Political demands for wealth taxation are energised by extreme and growing inequalities at global and national level. The world’s wealthiest man is Elon Musk, and his personal fortune appears to be around $500 billion. He has recently negotiated a pay settlement which could earn a further $1000 billion (a trillion) over the next decade: equivalent to the combined salaries of all primary school teachers in the USA.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 24 Comments

Good practice in palliative care

Note that this post includes end of life details which you may want to avoid.

The Assisted Dying Bill has raised questions about the quality of palliative care under the NHS. Whatever your views on assisted dying it should never be a substitute for good care at end of life.

Recently I and my family have had a positive experience of palliative care in an NHS hospital, and I am wondering how widespread this is.

My husband, Ian, died last month in Kingston Hospital. It was not unexpected – he had spent almost half of this year in hospital, six visits in total. During the year he was transferred to the Elderly Care (aka Geriatric) team, who took a refreshingly holistic approach to his multiple health conditions. However each time he was admitted his health and mobility dropped down a notch, so he eventually he became effectively bed bound.

Just before he was admitted for the last time he told me that he had had enough and it was time to go. From his hospital bed he made last minute changes to his funeral plans which he had drawn up under Covid. In fact he rather surprised some visitors by discussing it in some detail, asking them to contribute in some way.

Eventually it became clear that the treatment was no longer effective. Our sons were staying with me by that stage, and I asked if one of us could stay all night. They moved Ian into a single room so we could come and go as we pleased.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 10 Comments

The Triple Lock: Well-intended, now unsustainable

Let us travel all the way back to 2010, a year in which a jubilant “Cleggmania” contrasted with a dire backdrop. The economy was in bad shape following the 2008 financial crash. We had just failed to reach an agreement with Gordon Brown’s Labour Party (the maths wasn’t ‘mathing’), and as a result went into a coalition with the Conservatives. Austerity was the word on everyone’s lips, and for many of us, it was an inevitable devastation for our families and communities.

However, there was a Liberal Democrat Minister – who is often forgotten in the re-litigation and discourse about that fateful coalition – Sir Steve Webb.

Webb sought to correct a major structural inequity; the shambolic state of the country’s state pension. Margaret Thatcher, who many gleefully refer to as “Milk Snatcher”, had decided to break the earnings link of the state pension in 1980. For decades, the pensions had only ever been uprated by inflation – which meant pensioner incomes fell steadily behind wages. 

So what was his solution? The Triple Lock – and despite my blatant misgivings of it, I think it was a good idea at the time. It helped restore financial security to millions of pensioners who had been neglected.

But policy solutions are rarely permanent – especially economic ones. The problems they fix evolve and mutate, the numbers change, and even good ideas can outlive their purpose. Not even Beveridge’s reforms were meant to last forever.

Since 2010, when Webb introduced the policy, Britain has faced a saga of crises: Brexit, COVID-19, the Ukraine War, and Liz Truss.

Our population is ageing, productivity is stagnant, employment is fragile (not helped by Labour’s Employer NICs policy), and wages grow at a snail’s pace. These factors have led to crowding out of other welfare expenditure, the support ratio (the number of people supporting each pensioner) falling, and a squeeze on the working-age population.

The ground beneath the Triple Lock has become incredibly unstable. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s own findings tell us it will cost an additional £15.5 billion a year by 2029/30, while welfare expenditure elsewhere is likely to be slashed further by Rachel Reeves.

Make no mistake, the Triple Lock remains a liberal achievement. But it is also a policy mechanism – and like all mechanisms, it can outlive its purpose. What was once an act of fairness is now a major fiscal liability. We are transferring wealth from younger and working-age citizens to retirees faster than any major economy, according to the Resolution Foundation.

As liberals, we believe in fairness, dignity, and liberty through economic security. Therefore, we cannot – in good faith – continue to justify the existence of a policy that now undermines all three. There is a way to correct this course and protect the State Pension, and it eliminates the liability without hurting the poorest pensioners: means-testing.

Universality, in theory, is a nice idea – it avoids the bureaucratic stress of thresholds, tapering, cliff-edges and tribunals – but it is highly inequitable. People say that it works because of recapture, but does it really? When you give money to the wealthiest, richest demographics, those with the lowest Marginal Propensity to Consume, you do not get nearly as much – if anything – back.

That’s why we must consider a means-tested approach that protects those in genuine need while restoring balance, such as:

  • We should make the Double Lock the default (higher of CPI or earnings). This removes the problematic 2.5% ratchet for most people, and in turn potentially still saves around £12 billion based on OBR figures.
  • But that does not mean getting rid of the Triple Lock entirely, if we let the poorest pensioners (bottom 20-25% based on current income) retain the Triple Lock, they are not losing support from the State Pension. Moreover, the savings we make from equitable reforms means we can support them better, too.
  • For those in the higher-rate tax band of 40%, or equivalent in terms of pensionable income, they do not get either the Triple Lock or Double Lock; they get the Single Lock (CPI only). Their pension grows with prices, but it does not grow faster than the working-age tax base. This could save around £1.3 billion at steady-state.
  • Finally, those with the highest pensionable income – say £70k-£90k+ – do not need the state pension and therefore shouldn’t receive it. We shouldn’t be subsidising avarice when children are going to bed hungry and people are freezing to death on the streets in Winter. This could save around £5.75 billion per year, after admin costs.
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 45 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Michael Bukola
    Much of the stigma surrounding council homes rests in the design of such properties and tower blocks in particular. Building tower blocks addresses housing shor...
  • Pawel Urbanski
    Housing is the symptom, not the disease. But the money at the top isn't sitting in payslips but in assets, and homes are the favourite. An average home in Engla...
  • David Allen
    Governments have repeatedly promised to do something, and have then done nothing, thanks to scare stories about costs from their opponents. What, if anything, ...
  • Nonconformistradical
    @Jason Connor "There are still many developers sitting on so may empty properties so councils should be allowed to seize them for social housing if they are le...
  • Roland
    >” So pleased Mathew to see your comment about Kemi Badenoch” We shouldn’t forget the Conservatives lead the attacks on social services - deriding the...