Tag Archives: labour

Vince Cable writes…Labour and Fiscal Rules

The nation waits for the people of Makerfield to decide whether Keir Starmer will face a challenge from his most plausible and electable Labour critic. Were Andy Burnham to emerge victorious and to challenge for the party leadership, this would signal a shift to what is being called the ‘soft left’.

One of the most deeply held convictions of those in this political space is that the government is being held back from more ‘progressive’ policies by unduly restrictive fiscal rules which exist to reassure ‘the bond markets’ that the UK is a trustworthy, reliable borrower.

Andy Burnham’s position on the …

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 27 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

Mathew on Monday: the rules matter – especially when our allies break them

The arrest and removal of Nicolas Maduro by the United States is a moment that should chill anyone who believes in international law, the rules-based order, and liberal democracy.

Let’s be absolutely clear from the outset: no one is defending Maduro. He presided over a brutal, corrupt, authoritarian regime that crushed dissent, hollowed out democratic institutions, and inflicted immense suffering on the Venezuelan people. His removal from power will prompt relief in many quarters – understandably so.

But relief cannot become amnesia. What matters here is how power is exercised, not simply who wields it. The unilateral seizure of a foreign head of state, without international legal authority or multilateral backing, is a profound breach of the very system of rules that liberal democracies claim to uphold. The rules-based international order does not exist to protect dictators, it exists to prevent chaos, lawlessness, and the return of “might makes right” geopolitics. Once we decide that international law applies only when it is convenient – or only when the violator is an adversary – we surrender the very moral authority on which liberal democracy depends.

That is why Ed Davey is right to have spoken out clearly and unambiguously. His stance – condemning this action while reaffirming commitment to international law -is precisely what principled leadership looks like. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to oppose authoritarianism without endorsing lawlessness. The same clarity and moral purpose has been evident in his decision to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Denmark in the face of reckless rhetoric over Greenland. Sovereignty matters. Borders matter. International norms matter. We cannot credibly defend democracy abroad if we equivocate when those principles are tested by our friends.

Which brings us to the deeply disappointing response from the British government. Keir Starmer has, in effect, chosen to have no stance at all. Carefully worded evasions, an instinctive reluctance to upset Washington, and a studied vagueness masquerading as responsibility. This is not diplomacy; it is abdication.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 18 Comments

Labour has lost its moral and political compass

I have been a Liberal Democrat for many years, and I never imagined a time when a major party on the centre-left would be celebrating its immigration policy alongside the very architects of anti-immigrant sentiment. Yet here we are. As Shabana Mahmood unveils her new asylum and immigration plans, the loudest endorsements are not coming from progressive voices, the NHS, or the communities dependent on migration, but from figures like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage—men who have built careers on demonising and scapegoating newcomers.

​This applause is a siren call that should terrify the Labour movement, but for the Liberal Democrats, it is a clarifying moment.

​When people like Robinson and Farage applaud Labour’s direction, it sends a crystal-clear signal: Shabana Mahmood is moving the Labour Party so far to the right that the far-right ecosystem now views her as an active ally. For those of us who believe in the core Liberal values of fairness, compassion, and evidence-based policy, this is profoundly alarming.

​The very people keeping our social fabric intact—the hard-working individuals in the care sector—are the ones being betrayed. Under the previous, more humane system, many care workers were on a clear, five-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). This gave them stability, dignity, and a predictable future.

​Mahmood’s proposal to stretch that pathway to twenty years is not a policy; it is a punishment. It translates to twenty years of insecurity, twenty  years of anxiety, telling dedicated workers, “Even though you care for our elderly, our grandparents, and our disabled loved ones, you still haven’t earned the right to call this country home.”

​And who cheered this punitive shift? Tommy Robinson, calling it a step in the right direction. Nigel Farage, claiming she was suitable to join Reform.

If they believe Labour has become their champion, then Labour has utterly lost its moral and political compass.

The tragedy is that Labour believes it is playing a clever political game. Mahmood thinks that by mirroring Conservative and Reform UK rhetoric, she can win over disillusioned voters who are looking for someone to blame.

But politics abhors a vacuum, and voters will always choose the authentic voice of the far-right over its pale imitation. Labour will never ‘out-Reform’ Reform.

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

Labour’s inhumanity must be opposed!

Immigration and asylum have been dominant political issues since the general election last year. These issues have been amplified by Reform UK, the Conservatives and right-wing media outlets. However, Labour is in power, not the traditional right, not that you can recognise anything progressive about many of this Labour government’s policies, especially towards immigrants and asylum seekers.

Labour’s current political approach is completely contradictory. You cannot be in favour of economic growth and strong public services on the one hand and anti-immigration on the other hand. Where would our National Health Service, our social care sector, our education system or many of our small businesses be without the invaluable contribution of people from overseas? The answer is that they would be nowhere. They would not be able to function without the work and expertise of immigrants and would surely face collapse without them. Every immigrant that works and pays taxes is actively contributing to this country and making it richer, both economically and culturally. Anti-immigrant politics actively undermines both our economy and our public services. 

As bad and counterproductive as Labour’s approach to immigration is, it is its approach to asylum seekers and refugees that is especially disgraceful. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has outlined a series of hardline reforms to the asylum system. Amongst these reforms, refugees would have to be resident in the UK for 20 years before they could apply for permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain. During this period, asylum seekers would face continual review of their status every 30 months with the potential of being deported back to their home country at any moment if the government deems that country safe to return to.

It was also reported that asylum seekers could face the grotesque prospect of having their jewellery and other precious valuables taken from them to cover their processing costs. Although, ministers have since clarified that only valuable assets could be taken not personal belongings. A small improvement to a terrible policy.

Internationally, Labour’s reforms to immigration and asylum may have significant diplomatic consequences. As part of these reforms, the government is threatening “Trump-style visa bans” against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A model of visa bans that could be extended to many other countries and thus undermine Britain’s diplomatic standing in the world.

A final aspect that should concern liberals is Labour’s insistence on overhauling Britain’s approach to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Labour plan to change how British judges interpret the ECHR in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers from using the right to a family life to avoid deportation. This would set a very dangerous illiberal precedent. The ECHR does not just protect the political, democratic and legal rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, but the rights of all British citizens. It is a crucial pillar and safeguard of our liberal democracy. It also acts as a common democratic safeguard across the entire European continent, a safeguard that was forged in the aftermath of World War II. If Britain were to leave the ECHR, we would be one of only three European nations to be outside the Convention, the other two being the fascistic regimes of Russia and Belarus.

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

Mathew on Monday – nasty party, progressive alliances and a new book

Labour…the real nasty party!

Famously, at the 2002 Conservative Party Conference, the then Tory Chairman and future Prime Minister Theresa May called her own party ‘the nasty party.’

Or, to be fair, it’s what she said many people called the Tories.

And she was right, we did and we do.

I should point out, this isn’t about individual Conservatives a number of whom I count as friends (indeed, I co-host a podcast with one) but rather about their policies-in government and opposition-over many decades.

Kicking the poor whilst they’re down, being less than friendly (to say the least) in regards to LGBT+ communities, leaving whole …

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

Labour, Marxism and the Lib Dems: my journey through Britain’s left-wing

My initial experience with politics was the first time I was able to vote, back in the 2015 General Election. I had just turned 18 and had grown up in a Labour-supporting household. So, instinctively, I voted for Ed Miliband.

I hadn’t understood what politics was all about, but I’ve a distinct memory of watching Gordon Brown on TV and thinking “he seems a nice man”. Looking back, my mum played a large part in my fondness. She was panicking, following the 2008 financial crash, over whether we could continue mortgage payments (she had recently become redundant, leaving my dad as the sole wage earner). The payment freeze Brown implemented prevented us from losing our home. I recall the Tory attacks, introducing the idea of austerity, and my mum describing them as “completely heartless”. She would be right.

Fast forward to 2015, and that wave of admiration I had for Brown carried over to Miliband. I had no idea what he stood for, but I knew he was Labour, like Brown, and that made him right in my eyes. The rest of the country didn’t feel the same, as Cameron’s Conservatives decisively defeated him.

Then came Corbyn, a man I knew nothing about before his leadership. I remembered watching his victory on TV, asking my mum, “Who’s that old man?” She didn’t know either, saying, “he must be some fringe backbencher.” Again, I voted for Labour, but this time from a “well, they’re not the Tories” sentiment. Still left-wing, I never quite felt at home under Corbyn, as I found him to be further left than I was comfortable with. Nonetheless, I gave him a chance.

His performance in the 2017 General Election filled me with hope that we might see a left-wing government after years of Tory misrule. By the end of 2019, however, any hope that Labour or the left at large would return to government had ended.

A few months later, COVID hit. With all the free time I now had, I decided to explore political theory beyond the Labour-Tory binary. I began with autobiographies; my first, and to this day, my favourite, was Denis Healey’s “Time Of My Life”.

It was around this time that I also discovered TikTok and, more importantly, the far-left political community on the platform. I had heard of communism before, but had never really paid much attention to it. Yet here I was, watching video after video of engaging creators breaking down political theory into digestible thirty-second snippets.

Posted in Op-eds | 13 Comments

Labour’s Embrace of Trickle Down Economics: An Open Goal for Lib Dem Opposition

A few “political open goals” have been facing the Lib Dems recently, from the firing of Christine Jardine from the front bench (covered wonderfully by Lib Dem Voice’s own Mathew Hulbert) to Unite the Union suspending Angela Rayner over Labour’s lack of open support for striking bin workers.

We can now add another open goal to the list: Labour’s embrace of “trickle-down economics”.

As reported by The Guardian, Rachel Reeves plans to scrap regulations introduced by Gordon Brown, Keir Starmer’s predecessor, to mitigate the impact of the 2008 financial crash on households. Chaitanya Kumar of the New Economics Foundation has criticised the move, calling the situation Groundhog Day, questioning the decision to expect the financial sector to do “most of the heavy lifting in terms of growth”.

We’ve seen how Prime Ministers have fared with trickle-down economics in recent times, with former Prime Minister Liz Truss being removed from office after less than 50 days in power for introducing a budget that sought to scrap banker bonuses, abolish the top rate of income tax, and reverse any increase on corporation tax.

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

Labour infighting, Lib Dem opportunity

Another week brings another public disagreement between Labour’s leaders and the trade unions that once formed the backbone of their movement.

This time, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner faces criticism after being suspended by Unite the Union for not supporting striking bin workers in Birmingham.

Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was clear: “We will call out bad employers regardless of the colour of their rosette.” Graham argued that the Labour-run Birmingham Council has let its workers down, and Rayner, who had “every opportunity to intervene and resolve this dispute,” instead sided with the council. There’s a sense of déjà vu here, with Labour’s old tendency to look the other way when problems occur closer to home.

For those of us who believe in social justice and strong local government, the question that naturally comes to mind is: “Which side are you on?” But as this latest episode unfolds, it’s apparent that Labour’s leadership’s answer is: its own side.

There is a precedent for Labour figures speaking out when their party is in the wrong. Neil Kinnock’s well-known rebuke to Militant Liverpool in 1985 is a notable example. However, nowadays, it seems more about posturing than principle.

Labour’s internal disputes shouldn’t just be entertainment for outsiders. They have real impacts on communities, services, and working people. As one of Rayner’s allies said, she’s “not interested in silly stunts… she’s interested in changing workers’ lives.” Yet, while Labour leaders argue among themselves, workers’ pay and conditions are left neglected. Some suggest that Unite’s actions and Sharon Graham’s ambitions ahead of a leadership election are the same. But for Birmingham’s residents, this political drama hardly offers solace.

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

Labour benefit cuts: a burden for the poor, a boon for Farage

After 14 years of misgovernance, turmoil, and ongoing reductions to public services, the Conservatives have lost power, allowing the Labour Party to reclaim Number 10. Nevertheless, recent actions suggest that the Tories’ influence lingers.

The decision to eliminate the Winter Fuel Allowance and reduce benefits aligns with Conservative policies that prioritise a “balanced budget” over the welfare of the most vulnerable in society. Conversely, Labour has historically prided itself on advocating against poverty and social injustice, exemplified by its efforts to legalise abortion, decriminalise homosexuality, repeal Section 28, and lift millions from poverty.

However, this has shifted. During the 2024 election campaign, Labour spoke of “tight fiscal rules” concerning government spending. Many assumed this was a tactic to placate the right-wing media and prevent a repeat of the 2019 election loss. This view seemed reinforced by initiatives such as renationalising the railways, boosting local community investments, and increasing the defence budget.

The first significant blow came in October 2024 when Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced cuts to that year’s Winter Fuel Allowance. Just 16 years prior, Gordon Brown celebrated this policy as a significant Labour achievement against the Tories.

Shortly after, in March 2025, the government revealed another cut: benefits would be reduced.

Looking back to 2010, Labour and others condemned the Coalition Government’s decision to slash benefits as “inhumane.” Now, fifteen years later, Labour finds itself following the same path.

Some argue that the current state of the country and the world is significantly different from 2010 or even 2020. Many within Labour say that, although they do not favour these changes, they are essential for immediate stability, which will ultimately lead to long-term solutions. Yet, this doesn’t change the fact that millions will face poverty in the name of achieving a “balanced budget.”

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 13 Comments

Technocracy vs populism

The Labour government have announced a U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. Pondering over Sir Keir’s leadership of Labour and now his current premiership, I’ve noticed that he is fighting a battle which I feel is being overlooked. What I currently find is that there is a polarising divide for politicians where they seem to try and find a balance between technocracy and populism.

What do I mean by these terms? Well, for us political nerds, I think we all know what populist politics is. It can come in many forms, from the Corbyn era to the MAGA movement, it is there to serve as an alternative to the status quo of politics. More than just a technical opposition in parliament, populists aim to change the system altogether. What do I mean by technocracy? Well, that is what I would define as the ‘establishment’. Politicians and civil servants who create legislation and policy that makes minimal change to the institutions.

Looking at the government, the Prime Minister is a technocrat at heart. A pragmatist. What I have learned, being a former Labour member under his leadership, is that ideology is not what he is interested in. He cares about details and prides himself on preservation of institutions. That has been Labour’s weakness since their election victory in 2024; Labour campaigned on ‘change’ but have shown through their actions that there will be no meaningful change. For example, a key educational policy in their 2024 manifesto is to recruit 6,500 teachers. That sounds like a lot; however, figures have shown that in both 2021/22 and 2022/23, nearly 40,000 teachers left the profession. 6,500 new teachers will not solve the retention crisis of school staff.

Labour can point to raising wages, which I support, but that policy alone does not solve poverty or wealth inequality. In my personal position, the wage rise only amounted to me having roughly £6 extra onto my day rates in one of my jobs. I don’t live in poverty but as a working-class person, that policy hasn’t eased the financial pressures we all face.

Looking at the numbers, I understand why Labour made their decision of the winter fuel cuts. There are plenty of pensioners that, in my view, were going to suffer as a direct result of the policy and be pushed into poverty. However, there are pensioners that were receiving the payment when they were quite well off. Rory Stewart recently spoke of how his mother received the payment when she didn’t need to. With an ageing population, the winter fuel payment is extremely costly to the taxpayer. This is the technocratic argument.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 5 Comments

Christine Jardine: Labour needs to deliver more for Scotland to beat SNP

In her Scotsman column this week, Christine Jardine has a stark message for Labour: get your backsides into gear and do more for Scotland or you are toast at the Holyrood elections in 2026. The last thing Scotland needs is another 5 years of the SNP, so we’d better hope they take heed.

Ahead of the General election last July, it looked like Labour were on course to form a Scottish Government too.

Unfortunately, with cuts to Winter Fuel Payment, the National Insurance rise and threatened benefit cuts, they have blown the goodwill that propelled them to 37 Scottish seats at …

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

The most annoying thing Keir Starmer has done this week

Keir Starmer and Labour had earned the right to a bit celebration in Liverpool this week. Having turned Labour around from an utter mess to a party with the size of majority nobody should ever have, their Conference in Liverpool could have been an even bigger celebration than our display of sunshine and unbridled joy in Brighton last week.

However, the mood in Liverpool becomes gloomier with each headline.

And while some of the headlines are definitely the right wing press making trouble, others are signs of serious trouble within the Government.

Let’s take the fuss about the clothes first. Starmer,  his Deputy Angela Rayner and Chancellor Rachel Reeves tried to stem the damage from reports that they had taken thousands of pounds for work clothing from wealthy donors by announcing that they would no longer do so.

I find it difficult to muster up anything other than mild irritation about this. It absolutely does not look great to people who are struggling to pay the rent every month and there is an argument that this should have been blindingly obvious to those who benefitted from these generous donations. When you are taking a vital help with energy bills from poor pensioners and not doing anything about social care, you need to really think about how out of touch you can look if you are seen to be throwing yours or someone else’s money around. And they should maybe have seen that it would have been lumped together with everything we’ve heard about Tories in a recent years in a file marked “sleazy politicians.”

There is no equivalence between the profligate, venal, corrupt behaviour of the Tories, doing things like handing out billions of public money to their mates and the stories we have seen about Labour. Many people, on whose votes they rely, won’t necessarily look at the detail and see the massive difference in scale. They may well be propelled into the arms of populists as a result. And given that some of those populists earn an almost six figure sum for a few hours’ work a month on the media, there is an irony there.

As far as the clothing is concerned, maybe that is a bit on us as well. It is perfectly possible to look smart by picking up a dress and jacket, or suit from some well known High Street stores, but we all have unconscious biases about how people look that have been fed by the media for years. We also know that those biases apply much more to women than they do to men.

When it comes to Keir Starmer’s box at Arsenal, I can see his point of view on this. If he were to stay in the stands, the security would undoubtedly cost a fortune and we’d all be complaining about that. You can see why he thinks that having a box is less disruptive and solves that problem. Going to the football is something that he has long done with his son, who is not going to be a boy forever and I can’t find it in my heart to grudge him that.  In isolation, I don’t think anyone would have really bothered about this. The trouble is it’s being lumped in with all the other stuff.

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

Labour’s Employment Rights Bill – whither Liberal Democrat constructive opposition?

It looks as though Steve Darling, the Party’s newly appointed spokesperson for Work and Pensions, is going to have an early baptism in his new role, with an Employment Rights Bill expected to come before Parliament sooner rather than later.

As a reminder, this was what our manifesto said:

Modernise employment rights to make them fit for the age of the ‘gig economy’, including by:

  • Establishing a new ‘dependent contractor’ employment status in between employment and self-employment, with entitlements to basic rights such as minimum earnings levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement.
  • Reviewing the tax and National Insurance status of employees, dependent contractors and freelancers to ensure fair and comparable treatment.
  • Setting a 20% higher minimum wage for people on zero-hour contracts at times of normal demand to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours of work.
  • Giving a right to request a fixed-hours contract after 12 months for ‘zero hours’ and agency workers, not to be unreasonably refused.
  • Reviewing rules concerning pensions so that those in the gig economy don’t lose out, and portability between roles is protected.
  • Shifting the burden of proof in employment tribunals regarding employment status from individual to employer.
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 7 Comments

The two child cap is just the beginning

Without fail at every council meeting, well, at every opportunity they can, my local Labour Party will bring up the Coalition.

They wheel out the same line, each and every time. For them it’s entirely the Lib Dems fault that austerity happened, even more than that each of our members bear a personal burden for cuts made. But they will gladly sidestep the impact of Labour Mayor Joe Anderson – whose legacy is alleged corruption, poor governance, wasted millions and Tory commissioners we’ve just gotten shot off.

Now let me get this out of the way – I’m not an apologist for the coalition, it got some things right, but it got a lot of things wrong. The most lasting damage is that the coalition broke the trust that voters had in the Liberal Democrats, and we’ve lost our status as the non-establishment party, the Greens are mopping up that vote in many of the urban cities in England. We must work on that as a priority.

At my last council meeting, we moved my group’s motion on scrapping the two-child benefit cap.  I was on the end of a condescending lecture from the Deputy Leader about “political choice”, she was referencing the coalition. But I fired back on this because, let’s be honest, now that the Labour Party are in Government they are going to learn a lot about “political choices”.

What was their first political choice? To keep the two-child benefit cap, a decision that Newham Labour Councillor Joshua Garfield celebrated as “Country before Party”. The most bizarre thing is that the King’s speech isn’t a binding commitment anyway – the Conservatives have demonstrated that multiple times – it’s simply an indication of a government’s aims for that coming parliament.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 30 Comments

We need to be ready to take on Labour

As we likely approach an incoming Labour Government, Liberal Democrats must not waste any time before turning our campaigning firepower on Labour.

The helpful zeitgeist in this General Election has been the self-destruction of the Conservatives. However, the quiet non-aggression between ourselves and the Labour Party needs to end at 10pm on 4th July.

At times it has felt extremely lonely fighting Labour in the last decade. As the party races to win the Blue Wall, Red Wall communities are abandoned in too many areas between an awful Labour/Conservative/Reform dog fight. Liberal community politics in Labour-held cities and towns is absent except …

Posted in Op-eds | 37 Comments

Stodgy Fabianism haunts Britain. The Liberal Democrats can offer an alternative

In just over a month’s time we will have a new government. But what kind of government will it be? We already know that Starmer is in love with councils, arms-length commissions, and quasi-public bodies of all kinds. Labour is committed to a British Infrastructure Council, a National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy (all under the sponsorship or direction of a Treasury Enterprise Growth Unit). There has also been a commitment to centralise policy delivery in Downing Street.

The reflex to embrace concentrated bureaucratic power has deep ideological roots in the party, going all the way back to the Fabian Society in the 1890s. For someone like the redoubtable Beatrice Webb, Socialism could only become a serious political proposition if the intellectuals and managers within the young Labour movement learnt to use the State-machine more efficiently and imaginatively than Britain’s traditional stilted governing class. In this regard, the Fabians agreed with George Orwell’s later assessment that ‘(England) is a family with the wrong members in control’.

But in time Labour administrators became just as stodgy as the elites they sought to replace. Rachel Reaves, and Keir Starmer are inheritors of a long Labour tradition of peculiar complacency in the sphere of political economy. They display the naive assumption that Labour at the helm is enough to steady the ship. They dare not check to see if the ship is leaking.

It is easy of course to mock the Labour leadership’s current pretensions, but it’s not as if the contemporary Centre-Right has a compelling alternative. Confronted with bureaucratic blight, Conservative politicians (and on occasion some Orange Book Liberals) have alighted on two dubious remedies.

The first is to leave the structure and functions of the state intact but starve agencies of funds in a bid to drive up efficiency. Bureaucracy may wither in the short-term but faced with the social fallout of a dysfunctional governmental machine, pressures inevitably begin to mount for renewed expansion. The machine slowly drifts back into its old position, sometimes more centralised than before.

The second response of the Centre-Right is to leave state liabilities unchanged while contracting out core public functions to the private sector. Nearly thirty years on, we have seen the results. A ballooning public apparatus concerned with tendering, compliance, and targets has replaced inhouse services. The government spends ever more on consultants. Accompanying this explosion of external providers, we have seen a proliferation of arms-length semi-public bodies (Academy chains, Universities, the water utilities) that are neither fully accountable to citizens, nor to Parliament. We appear caught between life-sapping statism on the one hand and unresponsive corporate power on the other.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 12 Comments

Make it known – we are a party of CAN-DO and Care

Liberal Democrats care about our country’s problems. We have solutions for them. And we know how to pay for them.

A new Labour Government coming this year? They are going to need our help. And what they failed to address in their manifesto; we will need to persuade them to fix.

Some of our country’s worst problems were brought home to me in a Guardian front-page story last Friday.  It was reporting on a survey from MDDUS, a medical defence organisation, of 1671 doctors from the four home nations. The survey found that 65% of doctors overall, including nearly four in five GPs, had been experiencing ‘moral distress’ because of the situations they had encountered in their NHS work. The leader of the BMA, Professor Philip Banfield said, “There’s barely a doctor at work in the NHS today who doesn’t see or experience this distress on a daily basis.” It is because the NHS is “impossibly overstretched”, with its thousands of vacancies for doctors and has a quarter fewer doctors per head of population than Germany. “In practice”, he continues, “that means we can almost never give the standard of care we would want, only ever the care we can manage.” This causes doctors the ‘moral distress’ described, and affects their own mental health.

The research shows that doctors are aware of how the cost of living crisis is damaging many patients’ health, with the long waits for treatment, and the facts of poverty or bad housing making people ill.

Backing this analysis up – as covered in the same Guardian edition – Citizens Advice has reported record numbers of people needing homeless services, food banks and energy bill support this past year. They referred more people to food banks and other charities between January and November this year – 208,000, more than in the whole of 2022 – and helped record numbers of people unable to top up their energy prepayment meters, together with record numbers of homeless people – 41,554 of them in 2023, up by 17% from the number in 2022.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 22 Comments

William Wallace writes: Why we should be wary of Lib-Labbery

Labour strategists are warning their party not to take it for granted that they will sweep into power in the coming general election with a large majority.  They point to earlier campaigns, in the UK and elsewhere, during which substantial initial poll leads have evaporated, to leave either no overall majority or even a surprise victory for the incumbent government.  It looks extremely unlikely that the Conservatives can recover that far; but it may be wise to reflect on the possible implications of Labour failing to win a comfortable majority.

Many of us, while desperately anxious to see the back of this dying and faction-ridden Tory government, will nevertheless lack confidence that a majority Labour government would offer sufficient political and economic change.  But we also need to be cautious and suspicious about how Labour would behave if it were to emerge without a clear Commons majority.

Those of us with long memories recall how difficult and frustrating cooperation with Labour has proved on previous occasions when they have needed third-party support.  When Harold Wilson won a bare majority in 1964, Jo Grimond – committed to ‘the realignment of the Left’ and to reasoned cooperation between politicians of goodwill – offered support.  Wilson responded warmly when opinion polls looked bad for Labour in the Spring of 1965.  When they turned back in Labour’s favour that summer, he ridiculed the Liberals in his speech to Labour’s conference, and went on to secure a clear majority of MPs in the 1966 election.

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

Accelerating economic decline and the political long game

Conservatives of all shades seem resigned to being in opposition after the next General Election. Apart from minimising losses by trying to trip up Kier Starmer, what is the strategy ? What are they thinking about the future, and are there any useful potential implications for other parties ?

The idea gaining traction amongst some senior Conservatives is that, since the economic fundamentals are so bad, conditions for almost all of the population will continue to deteriorate during 2024 and 2025. 

Therefore it is better to get Starmer and the Labour Party into government as early as politically possible. The logic goes that after six months or so, high expectations of a Labour government will lead to disappointment, and Labour will start to be blamed … initially for not reversing the decline, but then gradually for the decline itself.

Adding to this idea amongst some Conservatives is the view that a Starmer-led Labour Government, boxed in by right wing authoritarian factions, public sector trade unions, Corbyn supporters, and ‘internationalised’ donors, is not in a position by itself to work out how to manage the continuing decline, let alone reverse it. This will result in a Starmer government relying heavily on Treasury and Bank of England officials to handle the worsening crisis; the same folk who have brought the UK to this point in the first place, it is claimed. 

Therefore, the view goes, the scene is set for a new and refreshed Conservative Party back in government soon. This seems to be the leading Tory ‘long game’ strategy; by the time the next election comes along three to five years from now the public will be blaming the new 2024 government.

This strategy is clearly predicated on three main things.

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

Unity or compromise – the dilemma of tactical voting

Labour leader Keir Starmer confirmed in an interview with Nicky Campbell that he believes a woman is an “adult female”, a commonly used transphobic dogwhistle which undermines the legitimate identity of trans women.

This statement follows a long-standing public back-and-forth between the Westminster Labour Party and the Scottish Labour Party on whether to support self-ID, allowing trans people to identify as their rightful gender rather than the gender forced upon them at birth.

How far the Labour Party have fallen; once a party that championed individual liberty, now echoing right-wing populist nonsense, fearful they’ll lose their ever-growing lead over a failing Conservative government.

I imagine the late, great Roy Jenkins rolling in his grave. The man that decriminalised homosexuality, legalised abortion, liberalised divorce and theatre censorship laws, and played a significant role in the abolition of capital punishment would be an outsider in the same party that gave him his start in politics.

What is the justification for this decision from Labour? Human rights are supposed to be at the heart of their politics. This stance is a betrayal of liberal democracy and progressivism. While I agree hyper-progressivism can lead to more harm than good, acknowledging and upholding a people’s rights is basic decency.

Labour’s abject failure to do the right thing by trans people makes the argument for “tactical voting” all the more disagreeable.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 12 Comments

What on earth is Keir Starmer playing at by refusing to remove two child limit?

One of the cruellest things that the Conservatives introduced was limiting benefits claims to two children.

Just last week, the Child Poverty Action Group and other children’s charities wrote to all party leaders highlighting the impact of this dreadful measure and calling for its removal.  They said:

The two-child limit is a discriminatory policy which is a clear breach of children’s human rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The two-child limit robs children of the basic joys of childhood. It forces parents to take out a loan to buy a school uniform. Children give up hobbies because of the costs associated, and they miss out on birthday parties as they cannot afford to bring a gift for a friend.

The cost of living crisis has made the impact of the policy even more acute. The number of affected families struggling to pay for gas, electricity and food has risen sharply in the last 12 months.

The two-child limit has a devastating effect on families like Joanna’s.  Joanna works full-time and lives with her partner and three children. Her partner is too unwell to work at the moment. They lose out on £270 a month due to the two-child limit. Joanna has struggled to keep up with rent payments and, in June 2023, her landlord was granted an outright possession order to evict the family. They have just 14 days to leave their home.

Scrapping the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty. It would lift 250,000 children out of poverty and mean 850,000 children are in less deep poverty.  This single policy change would transform the life chances of 1.5 million children across the UK, children like Joanna’s, who are currently facing homelessness.

Children deserve the chance to thrive, but continued inaction will permit a cohort of children to grow up in poverty, to miss out on play, to be held back at school and denied a better future. If nothing is done, over half of children in larger families will be growing up in poverty by 2027/28.

So I was genuinely shocked to see Keir Starmer tell Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that Labour would retain this regressive, poverty increasing measure.

Of all the bad things the Tories have done, surely to goodness this would be one of the first to go?

For the avoidance of doubt, Liberal Democrats would get rid of it. We opposed it when the Tories brought it in and continue to do so.

UPDATE 20 July 9 am

In fact here is Ed telling Kay Burley exactly that yesterday.

As well as being the wrong thing to do morally, Starmer has now put himself in a position where he has picked an unnecessary fight with his party. Scottish Labour MSPs Monica Lennon and Pam Duncan Glancy expressed their frustration on Twitter:

They were joined by constituency Labour Parties, MPs and other MSPs.

Monica Lennon later wrote in the Daily Record:

Knowingly plunging children and their families into hardship is heartless and with the cost-of-living crisis hitting low-income families hard, it’s never been more vital to scrap the cap.

Many of those affected are working families, who despite grafting to provide for their kids, struggle to put enough food on the table in our unequal society. Single mothers are hit the hardest.

It’s no wonder many people are feeling scared and hopeless because the choice between heating and eating is no choice at all.

I agree with every word of that.

Starmer has given himself a problem he didn’t need to have.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 69 Comments

A leftist divorce

On February 26th, 2023, Labour MP John McDonnell addressed rumours that there was a split within the left after a difference of opinion between himself and former Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn on whether Ukraine should be armed to fight back against the russian invasion.

McDonnell denied this, claiming “an honest difference of opinion”. And what a difference; either provide firepower to a population facing a fascist invasion or choose neutrality and encourage the invaded country to accept annexation, deportation and genocide.

A breeding ground for division in the left is foreign policy. Most notably since the formation of the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) in 2001, individuals on the far-left have used the platform to voice their disagreement with what they view as the greatest evil on this earth; “Western (American) imperialism”.

There is, however, a problem; you cannot reach a peaceful settlement with an oppressor that refuses to recognise the basic human rights of the oppressed, something STWC ignores. This was the case in 2015, when Tariq Ali called for Western forces to “stand side-by-side with Assad and the russians”, despite Assad having used chemical weapons on his own people and russia by that point having carried out crimes against humanity in Chechnya, invaded Georgia and Moldova, and annexed Crimea.

There have always been, however, those on the left that are willing to put ideology to one side to fight the common enemy: totalitarianism. Whether the International Brigade that supported the Popular Front against Franco (before Stalin decided to torture and kill those that dared to believe in anything other than Stalinism) or social democrats across Europe working with neoconservatives and liberals in supporting NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, there have been those on the left that support fighting against tyranny.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 42 Comments

Red Line

Proportional Representation for Westminster as a red line in coalition negotiations with Labour has the overwhelming support of Lib Dem members.

But a Lab-Lib Dem coalition is an extremely unlikely outcome at the General Election. Based on May’s opinion polls, Baxter’s Electoral Calculus predicts an overall Labour majority of 190. We are on 20 seats. Adding tactical voting assumptions to the calculus raises our total to 25 and gives Labour a “wafer-thin” majority of 268. And even if by a combination of “socialist” scandal and Tory re-invention, Labour do fall short, they may well choose to govern with the support of other parties or as a minority.

Still, do we not need to think about and be prepared for all eventualities, even the roughly 5% chance (my estimate) of going into coalition? We do.  But that is precisely what we are NOT doing. In fact, all the attention about possible electoral outcomes has been focused on the wished for (and feared) scenario in which we hold the balance. The problem is that the red line we have custom-designed to protect ourselves in the unlikely scenario of coalition will damage our chances in ALL electoral scenarios.

I share fellow members’ anxieties (and hopes) about a coalition with Labour. Our electoral debacle in 2015 was a pointed lesson in what can happen to a junior partner post-coalition in a FPTP system. PR might mitigate such post-coalition damage; though if our share of the vote is as bad as in 2015, we would fall below the minimum quota for a seat in the vast majority of STV constituencies.

In any case, you may say, PR is not only a prophylactic to electoral damage, it’s also our most popular policy. It certainly is! Amongst Lib Dem members, it enjoys possibly unanimous support. But the election won’t be won by appealing to party members. It’s the rest of the country we have to appeal to. It’s not even that the electorate actively REJECTS PR. So it’s not a matter of persuading the unenlightened of the superiority of PR. Voters just have other much more pressing priorities:  the cost-of-living crisis, the state of the NHS and our rivers and other such mundane matters. PR comes far down their list.

From previous experience of General Elections, we know that the media loves to talk about our stance on coalition, who we will go in with, what we want from it etcetera. Such talk absorbs a disproportionate amount of our precious broadcasting time; particularly given how infrequently we do actually go into coalition. But if we choose PR as our red line, that is what the electorate will hear about us most. They will realise that we value PR above all else. They will understand their concerns are not our concerns. And it will affect their vote accordingly.

This is, of course, unfair. And fortunately, it’s an avoidable error, once we understand that a red line intended for negotiation with a potential coalition partner is possibly the key message in our positioning at the election itself.

We must have red lines, not just one red line, and those red lines must resonate with the electorate, not just garner an indifferent approval.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 27 Comments

Survation: Majority of Conservative councillors dissatisfied with own party’s performance

This week Survation reported the results of a survey undertaken in the last month. They polled 710 councillors of all parties across the UK. The results are interesting, if painfully predictable for the Tories.

Survation asked the councillors to assess the local performance of their party in 2022. Liberal Democrats came out with a net satisfaction rating of +92% (which is remarkably high); Labour councillors had a net satisfaction of +73%, but the Conservatives came in with a miserable +21%. Note that this is their assessment of their local performance for which they were responsible.

If you think that last figure is low, it gets far worse when councillors were asked about their party’s national performance. On that, the Conservative councillors net satisfaction is a staggering -53% (note the negative). In fact 72% of Tory councillors said they were somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the performance of the Conservatives nationally, compared with only 19% who were somewhat or extremely satisfied.

Labour and Liberal Democrats managed net satisfaction ratings of their party’s national performance of +65% and +56% respectively.

The survey also explored the favourability rating of the various party leaders. You can read more detail in the report, but it is worth mentioning how the main party leaders were viewed by Lib Dem councillors: Not surprisingly Ed Davey had a net favourability of +80%, while Keir Starmer achieved +5%, and Rishi Sunak was on -76%.

Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 1 Comment

We really must stand up for the NHS

The NHS is once again in the news and not in a good way. It is fast becoming a basket case with ambulances unable to deliver critically ill patients to hospital in anything like acceptable times, operations often delayed with unacceptable waiting times, people unable to make GP appointments and now a series of strikes because the Tory Government cries crocodile tears instead of funding the NHS and its staff properly.

There is a dangerous myth that has been around in our politics for far too long that the public sector is inefficient and that as much of it as possible …

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 15 Comments

Labour Party constitutional reform proposals

This week Keir Starmer launched a report for consultation entitled  ‘A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy’.  It is admirably full of attitude survey results, international comparisons, and north-south contrasts.

The report has a solid narrative and an overall theme, and in this sense can be said to have a certain amount of clarity of purpose.

The emphasis is on what some might call ‘the real economy’ – industry and commerce, and small businesses, and social deprivation resulting from declining economic activity, especially outside London and the SE.

The ‘problem’ which the report focuses on addressing is a serious collapse in trust in the UK political and administrative system; which gets worse the further people are from London. It blames this not only on accelerated regional economic decline, but also on a corrupt and over-centralised governance system, where development and infrastructure proposals from areas distant from London, sit for decades at the bottom of the pile in Whitehall.  These conclusions have seemingly emerged in part from Labour mayors, and other government decentralisation processes around the UK over the last decade, where Labour leads. Rising Scottish and Welsh nationalism are also blamed in part on fiscal over-centralisation and mutual disdain with London.

The proposed remedies reflect the definition of the problem; greater participation of regions and nations in central decision-making (including a new second chamber of regions/nations to replace the House of Lords), moving central government civil servants out of London, and limited devolution of transport, employment support, and economic development spending decisions. One has to assume that the absence of basic detail behind the remedies means that they are still being worked through, (under cover of the report being ‘for consultation’; all the relevant consultees having already been consulted, it seems).

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

Labour show their true colours

It has not been a great  week for those who think Liberal Democrats will find it easy to work with a minority Labour Government  or that Labour are our natural partners.

First we had Keir Starmer’s very odd comments on  people working in the NHS – where he said 

What I would like to see is the numbers go down in some areas. I think we’re recruiting too many people from overseas into, for example, the health service.

 

I have recently  spent time visiting someone in hospital and was struck by what a high % of the nursing and auxiliary staff were from overseas : what a message to send to them !  

Of course Starmer knows perfectly we need people from overseas to staff the NHS – this is pure dog whistle stuff designed to get a headline. 

Then we have that old  Labour favourite, identity cards. Labour’s last, fabulously expensive plan, for these was  rightly scuppered as one of the first  (and widely acclaimed ) actions of the Coalition but now  revived by Stephen Kinnock who says Labour is thinking : 

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 23 Comments

Labour join the Tories in trying to remove Young People’s rights

On Monday Keir Starmer had an interview with Mumsnet. He was asked the, by now, depressingly standard question on children and young people having access to treatment and support for gender identity issues. His incompetent response threw every under 16 in the country under the bus.

“I feel very strongly that children shouldn’t be making these very important decisions without the consent of their parents. I say that as a matter of principle. We all know what it’s like with teenage children, I feel very strongly about this. This argument that children should make decisions without the consent of their parents is one I just don’t agree with at all.” – Keir Starmer

In a few sentences Starmer committed the Labour party to undoing nearly 40 years of medico-legal practice in the name of appeasing a tiny minority of authoritarians. At a stroke stating he would deny the children and young people of this country access to everything from paracetamol to abortion, vaccination to blood transfusions, if their parents don’t agree they should have access to it.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , , , and | 15 Comments

Sorting out the mess

The country already had big issues to deal with before last Friday: price increases that are severely reducing the standard of living for many, a health service which is struggling to cope, climate change which is becoming more visible, and a  war in the Ukraine.

To this the government has added a completely unnecessary financial crisis. Another major unforced error following on from Brexit.

The best thing we can do to help sort out the mess is to get elected and to contribute in some form or other to a sensible and effective government. In this respect at least, the last week has moved us forward.

First, the Tories are making it easier for us to evict them (if more difficult to deal with the chaos once they have gone). They are backing policies that are both wrong and unpopular. Tax cuts for the rich. Incompetent economic management. Refusing to implement a windfall tax. Fracking. (Winchester, Wells, Lewes, Guildford and Esher are all interesting seats with fracking licences within the constituency or its hinterland)

Second, Labour is adopting reasonable political positions and has not yet messed up.  It would be naïve to assume that the Tories will lose (or that we will make significant progress) in the absence of a decent showing from Labour.  So it is therefore to be welcomed that hey had a largely successful conference this week on an electoral platform with many similarities to ours. There are obviously areas where policy is different, but there is a very large core we agree on. Look at the ‘pre manifesto’ prepared for our conference (Policy paper 149)  and Labour’s conference road map to a ‘Fairer, Greener, Future” and ask how much difference a neutral observer would see.  Conversely consider the clear water between what both parties are now saying compared to the Tories.  We know where we all stand.  (Labour members even voted in favour of PR – though it seems unlikely that this will be adopted by Starmer any time soon.)

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

Recent Comments

  • Richard Flowers
    Dear Rebecca, It is you who gives me hope and lets me take Pride. Thanks to your tireless work, and other members of the Plus committee and community, you�...
  • George Thomas
    Have just come from the latest post discussing Welsh Lib Dems struggles to a post regarding better transport. Does this mean support for retrospective funding f...
  • Tristan Ward
    “Let’s start by arguing that the economic benefits of the Single Market far exceed having to accept freedom of movement into the UK, and take it from there....
  • Chloe
    'Needless to say the poorest in British society paid the price for this' I remember canvassing , the poorer the area the less interested they were. Membership ...
  • GWYN WILLIAMS
    A balanced and fair assessment of the Senedd campaign. Unlike in Scotland, Wales has not as yet polarised into for and against Independence camps. The Welsh Lib...