Tag Archives: liberalism

Tom Gordon MP writes…What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?

The public are very well acquainted with what the Liberal Democrats are against – Brexit, Donald Trump, the sewage scandal, and more.

But in this new, fragmented and up-for-grabs political landscape, we must ask ourselves: what do we stand for?

Last week’s King’s Speech outlined a raft of new Bills likely to be brought forward in this parliamentary session, and it presents us with the chance to show what bold, modern liberalism looks like in practice.

Not ‘eco-populism’. Not the politics of fear, hate or division. But a confident liberalism rooted in freedom, fairness, dignity, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives free from discrimination and unnecessary state intrusion.

There are several areas where that opportunity is staring us in the face.

First, conversion therapy

I believe this is now the fourth time a monarch has read out a government’s plans to bring forward a ban on conversion therapy. By now, many LGBT+ people, including myself, will understandably wonder whether such a ban will ever be delivered at all. Delay after delay, and repeated attempts to carve out exemptions from any such legislation, have stymied and frustrated governments of differing political persuasions.

If legislation does finally come forward, Liberal Democrats must be absolutely clear: a ban is only worth the paper it is written on if it is fully trans inclusive. A partial ban that excludes trans people would not only be morally wrong, it would undermine the very principle behind the legislation itself. And there should be no opt-out for religious institutions.

I am confident that I and my colleagues in the Commons and Lords will approach this boldly true to our liberal values. The country is often less divided on these questions than the world of social media would have us believe. Most people understand a simple principle: nobody should be subjected to coercive practices designed to deny who they are.

That is not a fringe position. It is a liberal one.

Second, leasehold reform

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 20 Comments

Our political timidity has to end

Our party is gripped by political timidity. At a time when new parties are gaining traction on the left and the right, we appear to be afraid to explore our historic radicalism. We even seem to be afraid to even engage with the major political arguments of our day.

For an example of our political timidity, look at our responses to three of Labour’s flag ship pieces of legislation: the Employment Rights Bill, Great British Energy and taking the railways into public ownership. On each of these pieces of legislation, the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons …

Posted in Op-eds | 16 Comments

Why are we so timid?

The Liberal Party I joined in 1964 was not a timid party. Under Grimond’s leadership, it wanted major changes to the UK. It wanted devolution, voting and parliamentary reform, sexual and racial equality, supported joining the EEC, wanted nuclear disarmament and wanted more cooperatives amongst many other things. And it wasn’t afraid to say so.

Fast forward to today and we seem afraid of our own shadow. We say little or nothing on controversial issues for fear of offending anybody. Dig a little deeper and you find we probably support the same things that we did before but you’d never know. We are criticising Starner for being too cautious, whilst doing exactly the same ourselves.

Often our leadership wrings its hands about a perceived problem but makes no proposals to change them. Take the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex. We all know that the right thing to do is to change the law to make the equality act mean what we thought it did, but our leadership’s silence has helped the growth of anti-trans sentiment and made the lives of trans people more difficult. We have gained nothing but contempt for our stance and lost the support of many in the trans community.

We continue with the pretence that the answer to Brexit is to join a custom’s union, when the real problem is not being in the single marker. Obviously, some focus group has been telling the party that support for the SM or joining the EU will upset voters in some undefined demographic.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 8 Comments

Three chords and the truth

The new Fabian pamphlet, Common Endeavour, has one of the sharpest lines written about populism this year. In chapter 8, Labour MP Liam Byrne borrows the old country music saying that all you need is “three chords and the truth.” Populism works, he argues, because it plays three simple emotional chords: patriotism, nostalgia, and moral combat. Pride, loss, fight. Simple, repeatable, and perfectly tuned to social media algorithms that reward feeling over thought.

He’s right. And he’s honest enough to admit that mainstream politicians have been answering with word salads while populists holler a battle cry. Reform UK doesn’t win arguments. It wins feelings.

But Byrne’s own answer is where it falls short. His formula for beating populism is “optimism plus fairness plus performance.” That’s a strategy memo, not a song. It tells a government what to do. It doesn’t tell a movement what to feel. You can’t knock on a door and sing optimism plus fairness plus performance.

Liberals need our own three chords. Here are mine.

Power. Security. Respect.

Start with power, because that’s where liberals are different. Labour’s instinct is to fix things for people from the centre. Reform’s trick is to offer the feeling of power by handing it to a strongman. One is paternalism. The other is surrender dressed in a flag.

As countless leaders of radical movements have noted, power is not given, it is taken. I believe that’s not only a radical proposition, it’s liberal as well. 

The preamble to our party’s constitution states that power belongs at the lowest level that works. The implication is that the centre must justify each power it possesses, not the other way around.

Yes, the consequences of this are significant at the local level – neighbourhood budgets and planning decisions made by people who live with the outcome. But power isn’t only a local question. 

As a species, we are wealthier than at any point in history, but the people in the bottom half of the economy aren’t feeling it. That’s not a local problem; it’s a national and global failure of power. Who sets wages, who controls housing costs, who decides where investment goes, who writes the rules of the economy, and for whose benefit? 

Liberals may have cracked the local argument. The national one – dispersing economic power, not just political power – is harder. But it matters, and we haven’t begun to answer it seriously.

Posted in Op-eds | 1 Comment

Liberal populism could be our missing political language

Among liberals, “populism” is a warning sign. It brings to mind angry speeches, conspiracy theories, and politicians who promise easy answers while blaming outsiders. Many of us instinctively reject it.

That instinct is understandable. Yet it may also be a mistake.

Populism, at its core, is a simple claim. It says that power has become too concentrated in the hands of a few people, and that ordinary citizens deserve more control over the decisions that affect their lives. That idea is not automatically extreme or dangerous. In fact, it fits comfortably within the liberal tradition.

Liberals have always believed that power should be questioned. Governments should be accountable. Monopolies should not dominate markets. We believe communities should have a real voice in decisions that shape their future.

In other words, challenging concentrated power is not alien to liberalism. It is part of its foundation.

The problem is that the political right has largely captured the language of populism. Politicians such as Nigel Farage claim to speak for “ordinary people” against elites. The message is clear and emotionally powerful. They say the system is broken and someone is to blame.

Too often, liberals respond by rejecting the idea of populism outright. Politics should be calm, rational, and evidence-based. Those things matter. But when we refuse to speak about power, fairness, and frustration, we leave a vacuum. And someone else will fill it.

Many people across Britain feel that the system does not work for them. They see energy bills rising while large companies make huge profits. They see housing becoming harder to afford. They see decisions about their communities made far away in Westminster. Whether every complaint is justified or not, the feeling that the system is unfair is widespread.

If liberals cannot acknowledge that feeling, we risk sounding distant from everyday concerns.

The answer is not to copy the angry populism we see elsewhere. It is to build a different kind of populism. One that is socially liberal, democratic, and rooted in fairness.

Posted in Op-eds | 17 Comments

Power shared, not hoarded: finishing the argument

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

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

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

But there’s a step still to take.

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

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

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

Not left, not right; pluralist: a response to Roz Savage MP

Roz Savage is right that “left” and “right” are poor maps for modern politics. Her alternative axes, especially “power hoarded vs power shared”, are a better guide to what voters feel in daily life. But there is a risk in the slogan “Not left. Not right. Liberal.” It is excellent as outward-facing messaging; it is incomplete as a description of our party.

The Liberal Democrats are not a single ideological bloc. We are a coalition, intentionally, and that breadth is a feature, not a bug. We were formed through a fusion of liberal and social democratic traditions, and our constitution frames our purpose as building a fair, free and open society by balancing liberty, equality and community. That triangle matters because it stops “liberal” from collapsing into a vague brand label.

Posted in Op-eds | 3 Comments

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

Not Left. Not Right. Liberal.

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

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

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

That matters to us, and our future strategy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the alternative?

Open vs Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power hoarded vs Power shared

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

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

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

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

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

This is not technocracy. It is democratic imagination.

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

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

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

Short-term vs Long-term

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

Bravery in the open

The plates of British politics are drifting like never before, populism on the right and the left  creating a chasm at the heart of the centre ground; now is the time to sprint towards it, claim it, and take the once in a generation opportunity to become the radical centre. Being noticed doesn’t need to be the next stunt, great ideas will suffice.

In an era defined by uncertainty, Liberal Democrats face a defining challenge: whether to speak plainly and bravely about the issues that most shape people’s lives and suggest radical reforms, even when those issues are complex, controversial, politically challenging, or indeed, a combination of these. Immigration, the economy, defence, health and yes – the welfare state, are not easy topics. They provoke strong emotions, expose internal disagreements, and invite fierce scrutiny. But they are precisely the areas where clear, liberal values are most needed in today’s Britain, and where populism is currently winning on messaging.

For too long, politics has rewarded evasion in a world dominated by the boiled down semblance of detail. Soundbites replace substance, and difficult trade-offs are glossed over in favour of comforting slogans. Yet voters are not naïve. They understand that governing a modern country involves choices, compromises, and sometimes uncomfortable truths. A party that is honest about this can earn trust—even from those who disagree. However, clarity and decisiveness are imperative in the face of populism, messaging on the country’s biggest issues is where we are often left wanting.

Posted in Op-eds | 68 Comments

Moving on

These days we Liberal Democrats often divide ourselves, broadly and crudely, into “economic liberals” and “social liberals”. Economic liberals tend to start from the market, prioritising entrepreneurship, low taxes and preventing state interference. Social liberals tend to start from human rights and social justice, usually assuming a greater level of taxation and regulation, and thus of state activity, than economic liberals. But there is a substantial overlap in belief, and the crude characterisation of the last two sentences by no means describes all liberals.

The labels are as traditional as the idea, and I suspect have ceased to be useful as the world has changed so significantly since the days when they were forged. In fact in some ways I suggest that they are actively unhelpful. I have not met a social liberal who does not want a functioning market. Many economic liberals value social justice highly, although I have met too many who have difficulty accepting that individual freedom is a higher goal than maximum market efficiency.

Liberalism begins with the freedom of the individual. When liberalism first cohered, the most substantial threat to personal freedom came from the powers that be – the church or the state, the state being in the form of a monarch, an oligarchy, or even an alleged democracy like nineteenth century Britain.

It made sense at the dawn of liberalism, and it still makes some sense now, to link personal freedoms with freedom to transact. In other words, free markets made free people. For much of the history of liberalism that worked. It was possible for selfish actors to manipulate markets, and for the world to remain seriously unequal, but the downside of markets was more than made up for by the diminution of the dominance of the state and the sway it held over people’s lives. The key force to be aware of, and to guard against, was the force of political power, backed up ultimately by the state’s monopoly of the use of violence on a basis that was claimed to be legitimate. (For the purpose of this argument I am ignoring ecclesiastical power despite its persistence. Churches still retain much power e.g. the maintenance of the Lords Spiritual in this country, the spread of megachurches with cult-like characteristics in the USA and many southern countries, the rise of “Christian” nationalism. But, while they can wield great power over individuals and communities, their power globally is much more limited than it used to be.)

Two arguments were deployed if markets worked to the detriment of individuals. The first was that while some suffered, society at large benefited because markets mostly saw to it that populations prospered. (A rising tide lifts all boats.) The second was that the excesses of markets could be tamed through formal (legislation) and informal (consumer power) means.

The world now is different. It has become steadily more different since the rise of globalisation in the eighties, and in particular the impetus given to that movement by the neoliberal policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Now markets are globally dominant, and a few individuals and companies dominate the market. Indeed, such is the imbalance of power that any relationship between labour and profit has been broken. (The rising tide no longer lifts all boats.) Current wealth has such a force of gravity that it attracts more wealth to itself, and is largely in the hands of people who want to leave as little as possible to the rest of us. Markets affect the lives of everyone around the whole planet in ways that state power finds hard to match, even when projected by Donald Trump.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 32 Comments

Reflecting on a week as a trans Lib Dem councillor

Last week has been hard and the subject of a lot of soul searching.

I’m a Lib Dem for a lot of reasons. I believe in the values of liberalism and appreciate how the party approaches the nuance of those values in balancing individual and community or societal freedoms. I think a political movement that represents this and campaigns for a liberal vision of society that balances these freedoms to empower people, through decentralising of power and moving decision making closer to those it affects is an important thing for our society and is a way out of polarised extremism.

The thoughtfulness of the party’s policy making process to produce impactful, workable policies, and the effectiveness at which we campaign to win power to implement them is a unique place we occupy.

And I care about many of these policies. But being a trans woman I don’t get the option of whether or not trans politics/liberation is one of the policies I focus on, it has to be. As not only is it one that impacts me personally, as an elected trans representative, it is one I am looked at for, and expected to care about regardless.

So on top of fighting for affordable housing, cleaning up the streets in my area and advocating for residents left behind by a complacent Labour council, I’m having to fight against marginalisation. And it’s taking up more and more of my time and mental energy under the huge onslaught we are under: an onslaught of erosion of legal rights and protections, and a steady cultural shift which is seeing an erosion in trans acceptance and cruelty, bigotry and hate becoming acceptable.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 10 Comments

Liberalism: the ideas that built the Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrat History Group’s fringe meeting at conference featured a fascinating discussion of the historical roots and present meaning of Liberalism. You can catch up on the meeting, which included talks from Professor Jon Parry (author of Liberalism (Agenda Publishing, 2025)) and David Howarth, the former Lib Dem MP for Cambridge, here on the History Group website.

The meeting also launched our new booklet, Liberalism: the ideas that built the Liberal Democrats, an accessible guide to the key ideas underlying Liberal Democrat beliefs. The booklet opens with an introduction describing the six themes underlying British political Liberalism: liberty, equality, community, democracy, internationalism and environmentalism. It explores how these themes were expressed by different groups and in different contexts throughout the last three hundred years and more of Liberal history.

This includes sections on the three groups of MPs who joined together to form the Liberal Party in 1859. The Whigs first emerged in the late seventeenth century in resistance to the threat of royal absolutism, and came to assert the role of the aristocracy as the natural champions of popular liberties, and as the leaders of movements for political and religious reform. Radical activists in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were diverse in their politics and aims, but were unified in their pursuit of rights and justice for ordinary people. The Peelites, followers of Sir Robert Peel, who split the Conservative Party over the repeal of the Corn Laws, bequeathed a distinctive philosophical flavour to the Liberal Party; not only free traders, they also advocated peace, financial responsibility and steady, non-revolutionary, reform. 

The next section recalls Liberal support for free trade, the removal of barriers to international trade in goods and services, which played an important part in British politics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For much of its life, the fortunes of the Liberal Party were closely tied to the strength of popular feeling for free trade. 

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 6 Comments

William Wallace writes: Understanding British liberalism

Editor’s note: Jonathan Parry will be discussing his ideas at the Journal of Liberal History Fringe at the Durley Suite in the BIC at 8:15 pm. 

Liberal Democrats have come to the party by all sorts of routes – some through specific campaigns, others through local activities, through parental encouragement or through education and persuasion. All of us within our broad church, whatever path brought us here, will benefit from Jonathan Parry’s short history, ‘Liberalism’ (Agenda Publishing 2025), which has been written to remind us of the continuities of ‘the ideas and visions put forward by Liberal politicians’ since the term ‘Liberal’ began to be applied to Whigs and Radicals in the 1830s. – emphasising the political practice of Liberals in politics rather than the theorists who have written on Liberal philosophy.   ‘We cannot hope to find one single “Liberal ideology”, in the sense of a theoretically coherent set of principles.’  But he does trace a number of broad themes that have shared for nearly 200 years.

He argues that the continuity of British Liberalism is best defined as resistance to the concentration of power, either in central government or in vested interests, such as landowners, corporations or the established church.  Liberalism promoted local government against central direction, pluralism in religion and education, and civil liberties against state direction.  Today’s Liberal Democrats should take pride from the efforts their 19th century predecessors put into developing schools, sanitation, better housing and public transport, against Tory opposition, before moving under the 1906 Liberal Government to introduce pensions and national insurance through central taxation. He also tells us that the Liberals also legislated in 1906 to allow local authorities to provide free school meals. 

‘Most of the confusion in discussing political liberalism comes from economics.’  Parry argues that laisser faire free market economics never persuaded leading Liberals to shrink the state – although after World War Two some outsiders were attracted to the party by the hope that it would adopt such an approach.  Cobden and Bright saw free trade as a means to international cooperation, and retrenchment of central government expenditure as opposition to spending on war and government sinecures.  Similarly, he argues that political liberals never preferred negative liberty – freedom from state interference – as more important than positive liberty – participation in public life and citizenship.  He sees the domestic policies in Chamberlain’s 1891 Newcastle Programme as pointing towards the great reforms of the 1906 government, though blocked in Gladstone’s last government by the overwhelming problem of Ireland.

Posted in News | Also tagged and | 4 Comments

A new approach?

It is time. The country, in fact the world, is in a state of political flux. As the loud minority gets louder, it’s time for the quiet majority to speak up, and stand up. 

For too long now the extremists in politics, be it Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, or Donald Trump, have been dominating the headlines, the waves and our screens. Tweets, soundbites, provocation, division. It is clearly effective. But the politics they stand for are dangerous. They take away dignity, liberty, and humanity. You needn’t look far to see examples of this. ICE in America, Reform’s copycat mass deporation policies. Then, to the left, Jeremy Corbyn’s apparent inaction to stamp out antisemitism in the Labour Party during his leadership.

These people and parties do not hide their colours in ambiguity or political jargon which the Labour government of today has done very well. On paper, a left-leaning progressive government. Yet, because of the loud Reform Party, their rhetoric has shifted rightward, and the Conservatives have all but disappeared into a cloud of teal trying to win back support after being the adopted definition of reckless, shameful, and incompetent government. There is no loud liberal or centrist voice anymore.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 12 Comments

The Liberal Moment

Recently, I joined the Liberal Democrats; or rather rejoined as I was briefly a member a few years ago. I have been politically active since I was a teenager, for the majority of that time as a member of the Labour Party. My return came after a long period of reading and reflection. For some time, I had been aware of my growing unease at the culture within the Labour Party (which is exceptionalist, toxic and tribalistic), and the Party’s underlying philosophical basis (which is authoritarian).  Eventually the cognitive dissonance required to be a Labour Party member was too tiring, so I left. Now at the age of 55, I have found (hopefully) my political home.

Posted in Op-eds | 16 Comments

Churches and chapels, Liberalism and faith

Liberals will have followed the papal Conclave with mixed feelings.  Liberalism was forged in opposition to state power and state churches, their enforced orthodoxy and suppression of dissent.  On the European continent that gave early Liberalism a strong anti-Catholic tinge, which hasn’t entirely disappeared.  In England and Wales the alliance between Whigs and nonconformists became central to the 19th century Liberal Party, with campaigns to disestablish the Anglican church and to remove its control over schools and universities.  The high point of nonconformist influence in the party was between the 1880s and the first world war. In recent decades, some active Liberal Democrats have become hostile to faith and religion as such – in some cases intolerant of those in the party who hold to a faith and belong to a church.

I grew up as a Protestant Anglican.  I learned what I now understand as social liberalism from the sermons of Canon Marriott, preaching the ‘social gospel’ in Westminster Abbey (putting down my Biggles book, which choristers were allowed to take in to keep us quiet during sermons),   I had instinctive anti-Catholic prejudices, probably from the English history I was taught and the children’s histories I read.  I was shocked when, as a student, I first met an active Liberal who said he was also a Catholic.  His name was Geoff Tordoff, and he later became a key player in holding the party together during the last years of Jeremy Thorpe’s leadership and the Lib-Lab pact.  Then I worked throughout the 1966 election campaign for Pratap Chitnis, educated by the Jesuits and a practising Catholic, and learned to admire his intellectual as well as campaigning skills.  My prejudices evaporated as I worked with a succession of liberal Catholics whose faith and values went together.

What Liberals (myself included) dislike about religion is the claim to certainty that fundamentalists assert, the hierarchical structure of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and (often) Evangelical churches, and the corruption of authority when priests defend their institution instead of their faith.  Popes 150 years ago condemned liberalism and the separation of church and state; the Church of England was a pillar of social order and Tory rule.  As institutions, both have fallen a long way short of the faith they proclaim.  Both these ‘establishment’ churches have struggled to adapt to open and democratic societies, and to the uncertainties of reasoned debate and honest doubt that such societies depend on.  But both have adapted, to the point where right-wing media in the USA are bitterly criticising the new pope. 

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

Political Liberalism

How do we apply Liberalism in day-to-day politics?  A thoughtful new book, When We Speak of Freedom, edited by Paul Hindley and Benjamin Wood, deserves more discussion here. The subtitle is ‘Radical Liberalism in an age of crisis’. For the editors, the crisis is part-political, caused by the challenge of populism and nationalism, but primarily ethical, about a failure of community and a sense of alienation.

Alan Butt Philip’s foreword introduces one important theme of the book: how individual citizens can find a way of living that is environmentally sustainable and morally fulfilling.  Michael Meadowcroft’s opening chapter addresses the ‘deep hollowness at the heart of our politics’ and the need to reorient community identities away from the rat race in an era of low growth.

Posted in Books | Also tagged | 14 Comments

William Wallace writes: How should liberals mark VE Day

Once the local elections are over, commemoration of the 80th anniversary of VE Day on May 8th – the end of the second world war – will provide a focus for public attention and local celebrations.  Many of us will be caught up in ceremonies, street parties or receptions.  I will be singing in a commemorative concert in Westminster Hall (with Mike German, Joan Walmsley and 100 others in the Parliament Choir; do listen to it, broadcast on Classic FM).  

The government and the media will want to make this a patriotic occasion.  What additional twist should Liberal Democrats add to this?  I suggest that we should emphasise what Britain and its American ally declared they were fighting the war for: for political and democratic values, for an open international order and for social democracy at home – all values that are now being challenged by President Trump in the USA and by populists in Britain and in other democratic states.

I’ve just re-read President Roosevelt’s ‘Four Freedoms’ speech, and the Atlantic Charter that he and Winston Churchill signed on a warship off Newfoundland in August 1941.   Together these set out the shared aims for which the UK and the USA fought the war.  Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on January 6th 1941 declared that:

 We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …

The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

Five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.   ‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , and | 7 Comments

Yes, Liberals can and should be proud to be British

I feel compelled to begin this article with a confession of jealousy. Since joining the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I’ve met many wonderful people who can say that they are lifelong liberals. I always wince with envy when I hear it.

As I’ve told those who have asked, I was a member of the Scottish Conservatives for some years, including a brief stint working in their press office in Holyrood. I’m not ashamed of that per se, and nobody in the party has even hinted that I should be, but facts are facts.

Especially given the right-ward march of the Scottish Tories in recent years, I remain one of our most repentant sinners, comforted by the fact that the Tories left me every bit as much as I left them.

If I cannot carry the card of the from the cradle liberal, I can at least offer to be of use. With the foothills of the 2026 Holyrood elections in view, many liberal-adjacent Tories will be looking for a new home, one that combines fiscal responsibility with their open, tolerant, pre-Boris social views.

For an excellent rendition of this point, I highly recommend watching the speech our new MSP, Jamie Greene, gave at our conference in Inverness. Jamie spoke with candour, grace, humour, and clarity on this subject. He has walked the walk and very much has the talk to go with it.

Those expecting this article to be a shopping list of things that Liberal Democrats should abandon will be disappointed. Instead, I mean to encourage something that is going very well, especially with disillusioned Tory voters in mind. Our appeal to patriotism.

There is much to like so far. Ed Davey has been leading the effort, encouraging us to buy British goods where possible and taking a strong line on Russian aggression and the destructive nature of the Trump administration’s disastrous, miserly, and self-defeating tariffs.

Posted in Op-eds | 8 Comments

My journey from Socialism to Liberalism

Embed from Getty Images
I have always been fascinated with politics and how the world works. Our history, our present and our future. How we co-exist in society. Being a young idealist, I first felt that the answers to the issues that we faced were through Socialism. I remember seeing Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the leadership of the Labour Party, a weary looking man who somehow was able to connect to people of different generations and backgrounds. I was inspired. I joined the Labour Party in 2016, hoping for a better future.

Looking back at that time, I did see the world through a one-dimensional lens. Rich versus poor, the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat. Back then, when asked on how to solve the issues of the day, I would always resort to “just raise taxes on the rich”. It was the magical answer I had to any issue on the economy, never looking at the potential consequences that major tax rises could have to both businesses and workers.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 21 Comments

Why I’m a liberal, through the lens of the Oxford Labour Club

Being an absolute lover of politics, I often fill my term-time Saturday evenings with attendance at the University of Oxford’s Labour Club’s social ‘Beer and Bickering’. This is a social event which features three motions on various pressing political topics, decreasing in seriousness throughout the night. One fantastic feature of this event is that continually reminds me why I’m a liberal – and why liberalism matters.

Part of the reason I attend is that I love being one of the few people who breaks up the total consensus of opinion on most topics. Motions have included ‘this house would introduce a maximum wage’ – which demonstrated an incredible misunderstanding of who actually makes up the bulk of the British state’s tax revenue – and the one which inspired this article, ‘this house would ban private healthcare.’

The debate went about exactly how you’d expect a bunch of left wing 19-year-olds to discuss private healthcare. The general sentiment was that it was a total moral outrage that certain people could pay to access care. I note that this was often separate from practical arguments about capacity, with the overriding consensus being that even if it had no impact on the ability of the ordinary working person to access healthcare, it was still wrong that someone should be able to pay for a different service.

The room was not, I fear, turned by my rousing case for individual choice and liberty. It was turned, however, by a member of their committee reminding those present that under the current system access to certain aspects of trans healthcare are only available privately, and not on the NHS. How can we ban private healthcare, the argument went, if it would cause suffering to these individuals who the government won’t provide for?

Posted in Op-eds | 17 Comments

Liberals and socialists – a response

Last week, I came across an article by Chris Whiting on Lib Dem Voice, which you can read here. Chris makes a compelling case for why liberals and socialists should collaborate, and I highly recommend it. Nevertheless, I would like to offer an alternative perspective.

I want to focus on a line from Chris’s article in which he states, “If you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism.” I disagree. Socialism aims to establish a society where private property has been abolished, and the working class owns the means of production. In contrast, liberalism places less emphasis on who owns the means of production and more on issues such as freedom of speech, liberal democracy, freedom of the press, and, most notably, freedom of enterprise.

While socialism is primarily an economic theory, liberalism emphasises individual freedom. Both socialism and liberalism support economic freedom as one of the most critical forms. However, while socialism focuses intently on this area, liberalism views it as merely one aspect of a broader framework.

Another specific issue when rereading this line is the established history of liberalism and socialism. Although I was born in the UK, my cousin’s family is of Polish descent. My cousin’s family were hunted down and executed on Joseph Stalin’s orders. Those who managed to escape fled to the UK and made new lives for themselves. Those who did not were taken into a forest, shot in the back of the head, and buried in a mass grave in a series of mass executions now more commonly known as The Katyn Massacre.

Stalin’s theories, particularly “Socialism in One Country,” came at a significant cost: mass deportations, state-sanctioned murder, and the complete dismantling of civil society. One might argue, “But this is merely an extreme example.” In response, I urge you to consider China, North Korea, Vietnam, or Cuba. To uphold socialism, these nations abolished liberal democracy, committed crimes against humanity, and ignored any semblance of freedom. Where socialism has emerged as the dominant ideology, bloodshed has followed.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 24 Comments

Why I’ve realised I’m a Socialist, and why Liberals and Socialists must work together

For a long time, I simply considered myself a liberal. I believed in personal freedom, a strong but fair economy, and the power of government to create opportunity. I wanted a system that worked for everyone, but I also thought markets, when properly regulated, could be a force for good. But over the years, I’ve come to realise that these values of equality, fairness, and a society that serves all its people are not just liberal values. They are socialist ones too.

This isn’t about abandoning liberalism. My liberal resolve has never been stronger. But, I have been forced to recognise that if you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism. If you believe in fairness, then you have to acknowledge that an economy where billionaires accumulate wealth while millions struggle is inherently unfair. If you believe in democracy, then you have to ask why it stops at the ballot box. Why workers don’t have real power in their workplaces, or why people don’t have a say in the essential services they rely on.

For too long, liberals have sought to mitigate capitalism’s excesses rather than confront the system itself. They have pushed for fairer taxation, stronger public services, and better protections for workers. But these are reactive measures that attempt to manage inequality rather than prevent it. And the problem with inequality is that it isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. It’s a feature.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 21 Comments

Avoiding an end of history

As a dedicated Liberal I’ve always vaguely subscribed to the Whig view of history, defined roughly that, by and large, on the whole and in the main, things are gradually getting better.  Improvements are due to the gradual progress made in the development of democracy, increases in individual liberty, and advances in science and technology.  There are, of course, occasional steps backwards, but the direction is generally onwards and upwards.

To take each in turn, since 1945 in the UK we’ve seen the increase in women’s and minority representation in parliament, and the creation of effective specialist committees; we no longer hang people, racial discrimination is illegal, gays, lesbians, and unmarried mothers get a better deal, and couples can live together respectably without formal ties if they prefer things that way; and science and technology have made astonishing strides, especially n the fields and medicine and communications.

On the downsides, we still don’t have a fair election system, turnout at elections has fallen, local government has been enfeebled  and the executive’s control over parliament has increased intolerably; individual and institutional racism and suspicion of “the other” endure and have become a campaigning tools for mainstream parities as well as the extreme right; some scientific “advances” (eg plastics) are polluting the planet or contribute to climate change, improvements in communications have made it much easier to disseminate misinformation as well as enlightenment –  and nuclear weapons,  could bring an end to most life on the planet, except for microbes.

But by and large (again) Britain is a much better place to live in now than it was 80 years ago, and much the same can certainly be said of most of Europe and probably most parts of the rest of the world (exceptions being such as Tibet, Myanmar, parts of China, and, of course, the areas where “minor”  wars persist.)

However the election and actions of President Trump very clearly thrown a spanner in this cosy view of steady progress.

But we’ve been there before.

Consider the world at the turn of the last century, say 1900 to 1910.  A Liberal government with a massive majority set about taxing the rich to establish the welfare state, reducing the powers of the aristocracy in the House of Lords, amid growing recognition of the right for women to participate in  politics; there hadn’t been a major  war in Europe for 80+ years; the Royal Navy “ruled the waves,” we were on friendly terms with Germany, which already had a welfare state and Edward VII established the Entente Cordiale with France; the British Empire ruled about two thirds of the World’s ’s population and thought it was doing them a favour by  bringing “Civilisation, Christianity and Commerce” to  primitive lands and peoples; railways were taking the workers away for holidays at the seaside, cars, radio and cinema were  being invented, and the Americans were keeping themselves to themselves at the other side of the world.

What was not to like?

Yet for no apparent reason other than international rivalry which appeared at first to be no more than school sport-day style enthusiasm, by 1914 the world entered into the most devastating war it had experienced to that date, which continued for four years through a combination of pride and obstinacy.

Posted in Op-eds | 7 Comments

A non-wonk’s guide to liberalism

A while ago someone was looking for what they called a brief non-wonk’s guide to liberalism. In a fit of activism I wrote one. Once I had fleshed it out, I was surprised by the centrality the idea of debate had to my entire presentation.

The logic is quite simple. Liberalism has at its centre a broad brush of principle – that each should be free to do whatever they want provided they do not harm others in exercising that freedom. There is relatively little else that is central to the principles. That means that every strategy, position, rule or practice has to be worked out in the light of current circumstances to align as closely as possible to that principle – which means that all those practices, strategies, etc, have to be worked out anew again and again. (“When the circumstances change, I change my mind.”) That means we need to be able to talk to each other continuously and honestly, and yet sensitively and with respect.

It takes quite a lot of self discipline to do that. No doubt many would argue that we have lost that ability – social media, echo chambers, the weaponisation of lies, the practice of bullshit. I do not believe that; the ability to listen and speak respectfully has to be learned anew by each generation. And that is perhaps more important for us than for other political parties because it is so central to the practice of liberalism.

Arguably, we in the Liberal Democrats are not very good at it (though we’re certainly no worse than other parties). Debate descends into argument too quickly and too often. Perhaps we need to revive the practice of teaching the skills of debate as a central part of being a Liberal Democrat, so that we can converse most productively both among ourselves and in other fora. Perhaps there could be a new section on the Campaign Hub. (Yes, I’m being a bit mischievous, but only a bit.)

Posted in Op-eds | 24 Comments

Our responsibility – Reform can and must be defeated

While a cautious Labour government is worrying about former Labour voters who moved to Reform UK at the General Election and Conservatives are split between those who see the Faragists as friends and those who see them as enemies., Liberal Democrats have a clear moral  responsibility to fight them hard and defeat them.
Much has been written about the exploitation of grievances fuelling far right advances on both sides of the Atlantic and within the EU. While we have to take seriously the hurts many are experiencing and the sense of lostness in the face of collapsing public services which threatens civil society, we have to overcome the divisive hate-mongers. Labour say this is their mission but they have strange ways of showing it. So it’s up to us.
In the pre-Christmas weeks the Yorkshire and the Humber Region explicitly encouraged members and supporters to get stuck into a run of local by-elections saying “Reform is spreading divisive rhetoric and we’re working hard to offer a better vision for our communities”.
There was an interesting sequence of results.
  • On 28th November we had a shock gain in Woodhouse, Sheffield with a 10 vote margin over Reform and Labour pushed into third place.
  • Also on 28th a strong Lib Dem defence in York gave us three times the vote of the Tory in second place. Reform came third with Labour fourth.
  • On 12th December Reform took a seat from Labour in Merseyside (with no Lib Dem candidate). Meanwhile in West and South Yorkshire Reform failed to take seats in Featherstone, Wakefield and Dodworth, Barnsley. Labour held Featherstone but a large increase in the Lib Dem vote pushed Reform into third place. In Dodworth a strong Lib Dem hold secured twice as many votes as Reform with Labour in third place.
In some respects we have been here before. In 2006 the BNP came within a hundred votes of taking the Eccleshill, Bradford seat, which a few years later I was to represent on the City Council. We were determined to push them back. In 2007 it was not difficult to persuade voters that the Lib Dems were best placed to defeat the far right and we had a good track record to show that we could offer something much, much better. With people who usually voted for other parties coalescing around the Lib Dem candidate we had our biggest ever margin of victory. We secured nearly twice as many votes as the BNP in second place with Labour third.
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 27 Comments

Opportunism is addictive for political parties. Liberals must resist

Since our stunning victories back in July, something has been gnawing away at me: Who are we in the LibDems for? Talk to any LibDem activist and you will likely hear the following:  Liberalism is about the ordinary citizen against concentrations of power, stultifying social conformity and unjustified privilege. The same activists will often say that Liberalism champions equality of opportunity, human diversity, material justice and civil participation. But throughout 2024, the messaging around Liberal Democrat identity has been troublingly murky. Back in the summer, Ed Davey gave voice to a vision of centre-left liberalism in his New Statesman

Posted in Op-eds | 55 Comments

The Lib Dems must welcome Flat Earthers

One would be forgiven for thinking that a liberal party should be a bastion of free speech, open to people from all political backgrounds. Sadly, this is not the case; it is plainly obvious that Flat Earther Lib Dems are being silenced.

We, the Lib Dem Flat Earth Society, are a group of  Liberal Democrat members seeking to promote free speech, evidence-based policy, skepticism and respectful debate surrounding the shape of Planet Earth.

We are firm believers in free speech. As all true liberals know, free speech means that Flat Earther members’ concerns must be listened to, that our motions must be accepted at conference (regardless of the overwhelming wishes of our round-earth cultist membership), and that our elected Lib Dem representatives must take seriously everything we say. These inalienable rights are being denied to us.

Our cause is not ‘offensive’, ‘discriminatory’ or ‘completely insane’ as our round-earth cultist opponents claim. The Lib Dem Flat Earth Society merely seeks to question the current ideology-driven (un)scientific ‘consensus’ around the shape of the earth. And what are these lines of questioning met with? Rage, ridicule and outright censorship. 

This is not the way a so-called ‘liberal’ party should treat people with serious and valid concerns about the shape of the planet. The preamble of our party’s constitution declares that we seek to build a society in which “no-one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”; yet our members are expected time and time again to conform with nonsensical ideological claims about the shape of the Earth.

Our question is simple: is it really so outlandish to believe that shady, powerful figures in the British ‘space’ industry have sought to mislead ordinary people like me and you? Do you side with the wealthy, unspecified figures who censor anyone who dares question whether the earth is a sphere (why, then, do we not fall off?), or do you side with us ordinary men and women who simply seek to promote healthy debate on the topic? Many of these anti-disc diehards even deny the evidence that we can plainly see with our very own eyes: that the sky is a glass dome and the stars are painted onto it.

Why is the horizon always at eye level? Why can I not see the curvature of the earth, even when I am flying to Flat Earth conventions funded by ordinary, concerned citizens? Why is my OS map flat? If the earth is “rotating”, as the round-earth conspiracy theorists would have you believe, then why can’t I feel it moving? 

These are all difficult questions that round-earthist bullies like Mark Pack and Ed Davey flat-out (see what I did there) refuse to answer. Luckily for us, bastions of liberalism such as The Daily Express and The Telegraph are willing to support us by studiously documenting every time a Flat Earther has been personally slighted by the party.

Many of our flat earther colleagues will know all too well the nasty authoritarianism used to silence dissenting voices. Flat Earther candidates being deselected; party higher-ups speaking out against us at conference; our very own MPs spreading round-earthist conspiracy theories at the behest of shady Globe-ist organisations and wealthy vested interests (globe salesmen, Big Science, Google Earth, the Illuminati, NASA, lizardmen from outer space). The round-earth radicals screeching at us on X would not exist were it not for these shady organisations.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | Comments Off on The Lib Dems must welcome Flat Earthers

Your freedom is my freedom: Remembering our distinctive philosophy

One of the unalloyed pleasures of the 2024 Election Campaign was speaking to friends about policies, which, it seemed to me, represented the very best of us as a Party. We called for a fair contribution from the energy companies, Social Media giants, and higher rate taxpayers to repair our mental health services and social care system while strengthening the safety net for carers. We campaigned against the pollution of our beloved waterways, the diminution of the Health Service, and threw our weight behind a national strategy to tackle the often-invisible blight of loneliness.

However, something niggled at me throughout the Campaign: How do we draw our policies and positions together into a coherent whole? After all parties are not just shopping lists of policies, they embody traditions of thought and feeling which transcend the electoral cycle. I was left thinking: What are we trying to say cumulatively about our Party and the society of which our movement is part? It seems to me that the Manifesto was a beginning in answering some of these questions, but the existential query of ‘what we’re for’ still feels unsatisfactorily blurry, even after all the stunning electoral victories in July.

What do we need to do in order to weave our policies together? The answer it seems to me lies in renewing our distinctive Liberal Democrat understanding of freedom.

In a powerful article from December 2022, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams argued that the thing that most blights contemporary Britain is endemic social insecurity. People are going hungry, millions of jobs in the economy are failing to meet basic financial needs, individuals, families and communities are struggling to keep their heads above water. Williams dusts off a slogan from the Covid-19 pandemic, ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ and asks us to apply it to the economy. What would it mean if we adopted a systematic understanding of communal security? The answer, thinks Williams, is that we would end up with a more expansive vision of acting and choosing.

As Williams writes:

It is not just that insecurity literally threatens lives; it is also that all those things financial security makes possible – the freedom to celebrate, to plan for your children, to give gifts to people you love – become monstrously complicated. Living with any fullness or imagination recedes over the horizon when choices are all about survival.

Williams’ point is helpful for Liberal Democrats as we navigate this new Parliament and its choices and trade-offs. For us Liberty has always been about the safety to live and care in community. This is where we differ so drastically from Trussite Libertarians and orthodox Thatcherites. We cherish the freedom to love and care, give and create, imagine, and yes, make our lives gloriously complicated. Not everything can or should be reduced to the bottom-line. Liberty should never be narrowed down to personal earning-power, property-rights, tax cuts, or consumer goods.

Posted in Op-eds | Leave a comment

Defending Liberalism against illiberalism

Liberals are naturally optimistic and reasonable.  We recognise the past struggles to establish open, tolerant societies, the rule of law and accountable government, but too easily assume that those battles have been won.  In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most optimistic Liberals thought we were entering a post-conflict liberal world.

It’s now clear that the principles of a liberal political and economic order have to be defended against multiple threats.  Our society has become far more socially liberal than our grandparents; but not all are persuaded, and illiberal groups within Britain and outside are doing their best to reverse what has been won.  Our economy is deeply integrated into a global economy which is unstable, grossly unequal and environmentally unsustainable.  Corruption and crime are embedded in the global economy, and spill over into the UK; we have seen some painful examples of domestic corruption in recent years.  Political liberalism – liberal democracy – is on the defensive, across Europe and Asia, within the USA and within Britain itself.

Behind our immediate relief at the disappearance of populist Conservative government, British politics is in a volatile state.  Popular alienation from Westminster is at the highest level yet recorded in surveys.  Local democracy has been shrunk and weakened through successive reorganisations, increasing central control and reductions in funding.  The Labour government has won a massive parliamentary majority on 33.7% of the popular vote, with under 60% of voters turning out – and with efficient targeting by all parties leaving many constituencies without any visible local campaign.  There are now 10 groups in the Commons with 4 or more MPs; yet Labour and the Tories are still acting as if Britain has a two-party system.  It’s possible that the next election will see right-wing reaction against Labour constitute a major political force. Reform won 14% in July from almost a standing start.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 12 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Ruth Bright
    @Paul is surely right, do we have age breakdowns for stats on members and active supporters?...
  • Tom Bailey
    Alex Macfie says: "He [Farage], has just seized on one case of supposed “anti-white bias” by the police (the only one available)" So the 3 decades of Brit...
  • Alex Macfie
    @Simon Robinson &c: Please stop pretending Nigel Farage is acting in good faith. He has just seized on one case of supposed "anti-white bias" by the police ...
  • William Wallace
    Simon: Please give us your 'What to do' proposals in a future post. Getting to those who have switched off from conventional politics is difficult - even mo...
  • Alex Macfie
    @Chloe: Well the time Bijan Ebrahimi was arrested instead of his future murderer was on video. It didn't lead to any rioting or "vitue signaling" from what I re...