Category Archives: Op-eds

Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: “We need to be bold”

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 8th June 2026 - 4:30 pm

EXCLUSIVE: “We need to be bold, we need to be relevant, and we need to show people that we’re serious” – party figures react to news of strategy review

This weekend news broke, via PoliticsHome, that the Lib Dems are conducting an internal review of policy after concerns that had previously been kept mostly behind closed doors became public, with figures including former leadership candidate and current Chair of the Commons Health Select Committee Layla Moran speaking to the outlet about a “frustration” that the party’s been talking about the same things and that we “weren’t really moving forward.”

Despite achieving the party’s best result in a century in 2024, 72 seats in the House of Commons, it’s widely felt that since then we’ve been lost in the shuffle and all too easy to ignore.

Since the news of the review became public I’ve been speaking to people throughout the party, from parliamentarians to grassroots members for this column, about their reaction and what they want to see from the review.

Lib Dem MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough Tom Gordon, who was also quoted in the PoliticsHome piece, told me:

The political landscape is shifting fast, and voters who are frustrated with the status quo are actively looking for somewhere to go. The Lib Dems have a real opportunity here, but we have to be willing to step up with a distinctive, ambitious offer that speaks to the whole country.

He added,

We need to be bold, we need to be relevant, and we need to show people that we’re serious. Our members will not forgive us if we miss the boat.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 5 Comments
Chris Bowers

As a party we must be better defined for the 2029 general election

By Chris Bowers | Mon 8th June 2026 - 1:35 pm

There’s a fear emerging in the so-called realignment of British politics. All the talk is of Reform UK and the Greens being the insurgent parties that are taking over from the traditional main forces of the Conservatives and Labour. If that’s the current media and social media narrative, where do the Lib Dems fit in?

The harsh truth is that, unless we have a message that gives us an identity among those who don’t take a massive interest in politics but do at least vote, we are heading for irrelevance. That’s not true in terms of our electoral performance in …

Continue reading »
Tagged | 9 Comments
Tom Walker

From national averages to local realities: inequality in our communities

By Tom Walker | Mon 8th June 2026 - 10:17 am

Economic decline, Conservative austerity and misguided government policy have all been blamed for worsening inequality in the UK, however, this fails to take a rounded view of inequality and leads to debate over economic solutions that neglect local challenges. By defining inequality solely as an economic problem, we enter further debate about inequality as an economic indicator. Critics can readily underplay the impact of inequality in our society by pointing out that relative poverty has remained constant. Inequality must be viewed through the lenses of income, wealth, health and education, all of which are rooted our local communities.

Unaffordable housing, exorbitant early-years education, a lack of GP appointments and job losses reflect a perception of overall decline in the local area. This affects local people and the opportunities they are given. Two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty live in a household where someone works, this undermines the notion that “work pays” and is just cause for the anger felt by so many. Those same communities are experiencing UK firms offshoring to cheaper labour markets and criminal gangs operating with impunity. These are local issues for local people. This perception that life is getting worse and not better has been exploited by populists across Europe and the Americas. All too often, we link this phenomenon to polarisation and a changing media landscape, this isn’t the full story. Populists in the UK are campaigning on those local issues: “Make Work Pay”, “Revitalise British Manufacturing” and “Make Law-Abiding Citizens Feel Safe”. The electorate don’t need to support the extreme policies of these parties to vote for them, they simply need to see a party that is representing solutions to their local problems.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 14 Comments

We do have a two tier system, Part 2

By Neil Hickman | Sun 7th June 2026 - 1:55 pm

One of the changes to civil court procedure which was made following Lord Woolf’s report in 1996 was to require a party’s statement of case to be verified by a statement of truth.

To put forward a case which you know to be a pack of lies, in other words, became a contempt of court and punishable by imprisonment.

There have been any number of cases in the last few years where people have put forward lying and fraudulent personal injury claims, and the courts have taken a pretty stern line. Thus the Court of Appeal in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar  (2019) “We say at once, however, that the deliberate or reckless making of a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth will usually be so inherently serious that nothing other than an order for committal to prison will be sufficient”. 

Similarly Lord Justice Moses in  South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith  (2011): “Those who make such false claims if caught should expect to go to prison. There is no other way to underline the gravity of the conduct. There is no other way to deter those who may be tempted to make such claims, and there is no other way to improve the administration of justice”.

Now, those with long memories may recall the case of Mr Afzal, the defeated Labour candidate in Aston, Birmingham, in 2022. He had the brass neck to bring an election petition complaining that the Lib Dems had made false allegations against him during the campaign. He withdrew the petition after video footage emerged showing that the Lib Dem allegations had been absolutely true. The judge angrily commented that Mr Afzal “… had the audacity to issue these proceedings in the knowledge that the allegations quite properly made by the Respondents in the course of the election campaign were truthful. He persisted with the Petition and served evidence from himself and others which was and he must have known to be false”.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 2 Comments
Iain Donaldson

A Federal Britain: 3. Fiscal Federalism and a complete constitutional settlement

By Iain Donaldson | Sun 7th June 2026 - 11:55 am

Fair representation is the first pillar of constitutional renewal. Federalism is the second. The third and final pillar is fiscal federalism.

Without financial autonomy, political devolution is incomplete. Without it, devolution is symbolic. With it, it becomes real.

The United Kingdom remains highly centralised not only politically but financially. Most revenue is collected by Westminster and redistributed through complex grant systems. This creates dependency, weakens accountability, and encourages short-term decision-making. Governments often spend money they do not raise and raise money they do not directly spend.

A durable federal settlement requires power, responsibility, and funding to be aligned.

Under fiscal federalism, state governments in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London, and the English regions would control meaningful portions of major tax bases, including elements of income taxation, business taxation, and consumption taxes. They would gain genuine responsibility for shaping economic development and funding public services.

In return, they would assume responsibility for major domestic functions including health, education, housing, transport, infrastructure, and regional economic development.

This alignment is crucial. Those who make decisions should manage the consequences. Citizens should be able to see clearly who raises revenue, who spends it, and who is accountable for outcomes.

Local government would also gain stronger fiscal powers. Councils could make greater use of land value taxation, tourism levies, congestion charging, and other locally appropriate revenue sources. This would reduce dependency on central grants and improve responsiveness to local priorities.

National solidarity would remain essential. Fiscal federalism is not a race between regions. A federal equalisation system would ensure that wealthier areas contribute more to support less prosperous parts of the country. This preserves cohesion while allowing genuine autonomy.

Such arrangements are common in successful federations because they balance fairness with decentralisation. Regions gain freedom to innovate and tailor policies to local conditions, while citizens retain the benefits of belonging to a wider national community.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 5 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 7th June 2026 - 10:04 am

AI

Sitting next to Pope Leo XIV when he launched his controversial encyclical on AI was Chris Olah—co-founder of the AI company Anthropic.

His presence was no accident. The Pope’s 235 page “Magnifica Humanitas”  calls for regulation of technology to protect the dignity of humankind.

Olah’s position is the same and he has made a name for himself by refusing to allow the Trump Administration to use Anthropic for military and intelligence purposes.

Olah is on one side of a technologically-driven political divide in Silicon Valley. On the other side are figures such as Marc Andreesen, who has been involved with many of the tech industry’s leading brands and Peter Thiel, CEO of the AI company Palantir.

Thiel and Andreesen far-right libertarians who want to avoid regulation. They see technological development as essential and that the controllers of technology should also control the politics for the benefit of all. Both men are big contributors to Donald Trump and conservative causes.

The debate goes beyond Silicon Valley to the international political stage. The Trump Administration big concern is winning the AI race with China. Donald Trump recently signed an Executive Order allow government oversight to prevent cyber-attacks. But he did so reluctantly.  He wants to keep regulation to a minimum; encourage private investment in AI and then use the product as an instrument of national power.

The EU wants AI to grow. It wants investment in European AI companies but they view government’s role as a partner and referee rather than spectator.

To put it simply: Trump wants to win the race. Brussels—and the pope-want to control AI. Britain wants to win the race safely.

The difficulty for Britain is that middle positions become harder to maintain as technologies mature. During the early nuclear age, Britain initially tried to bridge Washington and continental Europe. Eventually it had to choose where to place its strategic weight.

AI may force a similar decision. If the next decade brings increasingly powerful AI systems, the central geopolitical question may not be US versus China but whether the Western world adopts the American model of strategic competition or the European model of precautionary governance

Donald Trump and the liberal consensus

The Trump administration has always been an alliance of groups and people that oppose the so-called liberal consensus: the idea that the U.S. government should regulate business, provide social welfare programs, promote infrastructure projects, protect civil rights, and support a rules-based international order.

Since the 1980s Republicans accepted many of the institutional pillars of the post-war order—especially free trade, alliances and global leadership—even while seeking to reduce regulation and constrain the growth of government.

Trump upended that system, promising to dismantle the federal government built around the liberal consensus, the government his voters thought they hated because they thought its protection of equality before the law gave Black Americans, Brown Americans, women, and gender or religious minorities a leg up on white Christian men.

This racist lobby combined with a growing number concerned about immigration, cultural change, distrust of elites, de-industrialisation and globalisation.  Or they thought funding for science wasted their money on the research that right-wing influencers mocked for wasting their money and intruding on their freedom. Or they thought the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. participation in alliances did not put “America First.”

In 2024, Trump cobbled together enough groups who thought that way to win the White House, and as soon as he took power, he set out to destroy the liberal consensus government with the help of loyalists he installed in key positions.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | Leave a comment
Tanya Park

Liberal Voice for Women poll doesn’t say what they say it says

By Tanya Park | Sun 7th June 2026 - 9:39 am

Yesterday I posted about a YouGov poll commissioned by Liberal Voice for Women. At the time I hadn’t had a chance to see the full dataset, and from comments by LVfW members in other threads I’d got the impression it hadn’t been published. It apparently had. Here’s my assessment now I’ve seen it in full.

The claims being made about this poll include that it shows “the majority of the party agree with us on single-sex spaces” and that “most actual party members are sex realists.” Neither holds up.

On single-sex spaces: every result LVfW are citing comes from questions specifically about trans women who have not had gender reassignment surgery. They present these as findings about trans women in general. They are not. For trans women who have had surgery the results are substantially different: hospital wards splits 43% allowed versus 37% not, toilets 51% allowed versus 32% not, changing rooms essentially even at 40/41. The only result showing a clear majority is the no-surgery changing rooms scenario at 53%. For no-surgery toilets it is 46%, not a majority. For no-surgery refuges it is 49%, also not a majority.

On sex realism: the poll asks whether people who believe biological sex cannot be changed are “bigoted.” 44% say they are not. LVfW infer from that result that 44% of respondents are themselves sex realists. The question does not ask whether respondents hold that belief. It asks whether holding it makes you bigoted. Those are completely different things. And 44% is not most.

The intimate care question asks whether a trans woman should provide care without the patient’s specific consent. 79% say no. That is a result about consent process, not categorical exclusion.

There are also real questions about the sample itself. This is not a poll of Lib Dem members. It is a poll of people who self-identify as current or past members within YouGov’s opt-in panel. Nearly half the sample is over 65, which is not representative of the active membership. Those are not minor caveats when the claim is that most party members believe X.
And here is what does not appear anywhere in LVfW’s materials: 84% of respondents think conversion therapy away from a person’s birth sex should not be allowed. When asked what should happen if women’s and trans people’s rights conflict, 59% say find a compromise, 12% say they don’t conflict at all, and only 22% say women’s rights should take priority.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 2 Comments
Alison Suttie

Alison Suttie writes: Thank you to our volunteers

By Alison Suttie | Sun 7th June 2026 - 7:55 am

Headshot of Baroness Alison SuttieThank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | Leave a comment
Caron Lindsay

What’s going on with party strategy?

By Caron Lindsay | Sat 6th June 2026 - 12:19 pm

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

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

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

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

Politics Home says the party is looking at changing direction:

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

Tom Gordon confirmed the rethink:

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

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

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

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

Layla Moran sounded optimistic about what was coming:

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , and | 16 Comments

We do have a two-tier system

By Neil Hickman | Sat 6th June 2026 - 10:55 am

I think Nigel Farage is right. We do have two-tier policing.

No, let me finish, as the man himself is fond of saying.

A couple of years ago, Lucy Connolly, a troubled and not especially clever individual, posted an unpleasant and inflammatory tweet in the aftermath of the Southport murders. She thought better of it and deleted it after a few hours. And it is difficult to believe that anybody sought to set fire to anything simply because of what an obscure woman from Northampton posted on Twitter.

What Connolly wrote was deeply unpleasant, but I can’t help feeling that the most appropriate thing to do with her would have been to tear her off a strip and tell her not to be such a fool in future. Given the very prescriptive approach to sentencing which now applies, of course, the judge’s hands were tied and she was jailed for two and a half years.

A few days ago, Nigel Farage ignored the request of Henry Nowak’s family not to make his murder the cause of division. With all the authority of the leader of a party that polled 17% at the last election, he made an Emergency Address To The Nation, which, because it was Good Old Nige, didn’t provoke gales of laughter. And he called for people to display “pure cold rage”. Unlike Ms Connolly, Farage is a highly intelligent wordsmith, who chooses his words with care. And he did not invite people to be angry. He invited them to display rage.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 16 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: NATO Irony

By Tom Arms | Sat 6th June 2026 - 8:58 am

Marco Rubio says the next month’s NATO summit will be one of the most consequential in history. He is right—but not for the reasons he imagines.

President Trump has spent years demanding that Europe take responsibility for its own defence. The Europeans have finally agreed. The problem is that they have also concluded that they cannot rely entirely on Washington.

That realisation is likely to dominate the summit. The immediate result will be more defence spending. The long-term result may be the emergence of a European military-industrial complex capable of challenging America’s dominance of the global arms market.

If so, future historians may conclude that Donald Trump did more than persuade Europe to rearm. He persuaded it to compete.

It will not be a happy group when the 32 NATO leaders gather in Ankara on 7-8 July. The 30 European members are still angry about Donald Trump’s designs on Greenland; statements about “European civilisational decline” and his failure to consult allies before starting a war with Iran. Trump is angry that Denmark won’t handover Greenland; NATO restrictions on US airbases during the Iran War and the Alliance’s failure to join the Israeli-American war on Iran.

But at the top of the agenda will be the Ukraine War and European re-armament. The Trump Administration has successfully shifted the cost of arming Ukraine from American to European shoulders with the PURL (Prioritised Ukrainian Requirements List) programme. Trump plus the Ukraine War and the growing Russian threat has prompted Europe that it needs more weapons now. It takes time to build the factories and shipyards to make them so they are by buying more from America.

The Russian threat is bonanza for the US defence industry. Between 2021 and 2015 European arms imports increased 217 percent over the previous five-year period. The estimated amount is $220 billion. European NATO is rushing to fill its defence gaps with off-the-shelf F-35s, Patriot Missile Systems, HIMARS, Apache helicopters and munitions.

But while shelling out billions to America, Europeans are also building the factories and shipyards that will build the weapons that will in the long-term replace American imports.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 8 Comments
Simon Banks

What really happened?

By Simon Banks | Fri 5th June 2026 - 7:27 pm

Soon after the Second World War ended, a German Jewish survivor, a brilliant philosophy student, sat down to explain to herself and the world how Hitler and Stalin had turned organised madness into an engine of government and destruction. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism came out in 1951.

Much of her analysis is dated or specific to the German or Russian peoples. But some is chillingly relevant.

How relevant is this to Trump’s MAGA movement, to Farage and Reform?

  • “Denial of the very possibility of a common mankind…total denial of the whole concept of human rights – stigmatised as weak, feeble-minded and hypocritical.”
  • Particular appeal to people who had not taken part in political life – non-voters etc – and such people could be kept loyal without much argument or influence of reason. “Politically indifferent masses could easily be a majority in a democratically ruled country…a democracy could function according to rules which are actively recognised by only a minority.”

Reform’s success has been to combine the intolerant hard right, which always existed, with voters who previously had not voted in local elections, and maybe not in any elections – people who neither understood not trusted the system.

Why is such a large pool of such voters available? The internet, the right-wing media and immigration are obvious and real reasons – but there are others.

There were always many people beyond social or work organisation, beyond strong and stable communities. In 18th century Europe they were numerous in cities, fuelling the Porteous Riots in Edinburgh and the Gordon Riots in London. In the 19th century, they declined despite urbanisation, because of the rise of an urbanised working class – possessing regular jobs, working en masse and unionised. Moreover, Methodists, Baptists and Catholics recruited and organised among urban workers. The Nonconformist churches and the unions had a participative ethos, promoting active mutual support. Both unions and chapels were strongly linked to the Liberals while the Conservative Party relied on traditional ties: rural land-based hierarchy, Church of England, military.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Mark Corner

Why community politics matters

By Mark Corner | Thu 4th June 2026 - 2:54 pm

There have been a number of articles in Lib Dem Voice about what the Lib Dems stand for. Tom Gordon MP asked this in what was partly a reflection on the recent local elections in the UK, and others like Peter Black have followed it up. But such discussions too often turn into a wish list of policies people would like the Lib Dems to support or perhaps campaign on harder. What the Lib Dems stand for is best seen in terms of a more general approach to politics, though it does have implications for policies.

In an earlier piece for Lib Dem Voice I referred to Ed Davey’s speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in March 2023, when he declared that ‘community politics is something our party is built on. It is what sets us apart from other parties.’ The leader talked of candidates being ‘connected to the communities they represent’, ‘hearing their concerns on the doorstep’ (as opposed to making cold calls on a phone) and of ‘first winning their trust – and then ultimately their votes.’

This way of identifying a distinctive Lib Dem approach to politics is often misrepresented as a mere fixation with ‘trivial’ local issues, rather than facing the ‘important’ issues that matter at national level. Hence the Tory leader Keni Badenoch waded in with her own definition of a Lib Dem as ‘somebody who is good at fixing their church roof.’ A pretty positive thing to do, one might think, but Badenoch was again trying to hint at a fixation with trivia – at least when viewed in national terms. ‘They don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice’, she went on. ‘They are like “Fix the church roof, you should be a Member of Parliament”’.

Right. We get the picture. ‘Community politics’ is all about mobilising people to deal with the little things that bother us at local level – holes in the road, bins that aren’t properly emptied, and of course those leaking roofs, while doubtless neglecting the things that matter – like the billions that need to be spent on urgent new military equipment. Tanks, battleships, submarines – these are the important things. At the very least, they’re a bigger priority than getting a team together to mend a leaking roof.

Continue reading »
5 Comments
Iain Donaldson

A Federal Britain: 1. Renewing democracy through fair representation

By Iain Donaldson | Thu 4th June 2026 - 10:25 am

The United Kingdom is undergoing a quiet constitutional breakdown. Not in the dramatic sense of institutional collapse, but in a slower and more corrosive way: voters increasingly feel unrepresented, power remains concentrated in Westminster to a degree unusual among modern democracies, and the link between democratic choice and real-world decision-making has weakened.

These are not separate problems. They form a single constitutional question: how can a modern, diverse, multi-national state remain democratic, fair, and stable when many of its institutions were designed for a different era?

The answer lies in three connected pillars: fair representation, decentralised power, and fiscal accountability. Each alone is insufficient. Together, they form a democratic redesign of the United Kingdom. The first pillar is electoral reform.

A functioning democracy depends on a simple principle: votes should translate into representation. In the United Kingdom, that principle is routinely broken by First Past the Post.

The 2024 General Election once again demonstrated the scale of the distortion. Parties receiving millions of votes secured only minimal representation, while others translated relatively modest vote shares into overwhelming parliamentary majorities. This is not merely a technical flaw. It is a structural weakness that undermines confidence in democratic legitimacy.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 11 Comments
Tara Foster

A roadmap to Queer Equality

By Tara Foster | Wed 3rd June 2026 - 3:22 pm

Rebuilding the trust of the Queer Community will be a long road. Yet, it is one we have now begun.

I have written before about how the Party’s reluctance to meaningfully challenge the regressive trend of queer rights in the UK has resulted in a loss of trust from the trans community, pushing many dedicated and experienced activists to join the Green Party. But, as the response from the Party to the EHRC Code of Practice has shown, there is potential to turn around this regressive trend. The Party likes to talk about our outstanding record on standing up for queer rights – from abolishing Section 28 to being the architects of the legalisation of gay marriage – and whilst our momentum has slumped recently, the leadership’s response to the EHRC code shows a welcome turn in the right direction.

With this in mind, I have some suggestions for the Parliamentary Party on how we can play out part in resetting to the pre-2025 status on queer rights, and how we can go further. Britain was once the best in Europe for LGBTQ+ rights, and we can take that place again.

  • Our MPs have 4 slots available to them from this Sessions private members bill ballot. One of these must be allocated to a bill that changes the law to make the Equality Act’s definition of sex trans inclusive, as well as removing transphobia (gender critical beliefs) as a protected belief. The UK’s system of gender recognition must also be repaired, de-medicalised, and further empowered to ensure a genuine legal threat exists against those who would endanger trans people by outing them.
  • Consensus must be reached on the approach to protecting and supporting transgender children. We know that the suicide rate is rising and is under-reported. We know that the puberty blocker ban is wrong, having been widely discredited by global medical bodies. It’s time for our MPs to take the evidence-based approach, to dismiss the Cass Review for the unscientific shambles which it is, and advocate for a return to affirmative and clinician-led healthcare.
Continue reading »
Tagged | 44 Comments
Jennie Rigg

A strange but welcome feeling

By Jennie Rigg | Wed 3rd June 2026 - 10:10 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , and | 19 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Fifteen years ago today……

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 3rd June 2026 - 9:37 am

Headshot of Andrew Reeves

Fifteen years ago this morning, I was woken up by an unusually early phone call from a friend telling me the devastating news that Andrew Reeves, our campaigns director in Scotland, had died suddenly at the heartbreakingly young age of 43.

Andrew was hilarious, incredibly hard working and very good at getting you to do very much more than you had ever planned to do for a particular campaign. We had known each other for years online before he moved to Scotland in 2008, but I first worked closely …

Continue reading »
Tagged and | Leave a comment
Mathew Hulbert

Mathew on Monday: Pluralism Means More Than a Slogan

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 1st June 2026 - 6:16 pm

On Saturday I travelled down to London to attend the Compass and Progressive Economy Forum’s Change: NOW! Conference, which brought together around 700 people from across the progressive spectrum for what felt like a serious and timely conversation about the future of politics in Britain.

In an age of deep political fragmentation, rising populism and the growing threat posed by Nigel Farage and Reform UK there was something very refreshing about spending a day at an event where people were prepared to engage with those beyond their own political tribe.

Speakers included Caroline Lucas, Vince Cable, Zack Polanski, Clive Lewis MP, Stella Creasy MP, the economist Gary Stevenson, Author and Observer columnist Will Hutton, and many more, representing a broad range of traditions, perspectives, and experiences.

One contribution in particular stayed with me.

Lib Dem MP for the South Cotswolds Roz Savage argued powerfully that “no one political party has a monopoly on good ideas.” It is an observation that sounds obvious when stated aloud, yet too much of modern politics is conducted ax though the opposite were true. Too often parties, including our own, retreat into their own comfort zones, convinced that wisdom begins and ends with those wearing the same colour rosette.

Savage went further. It is not enough, she suggested, to simply describe themselves as pluralists. We have to demonstrate pluralism in practice. We have to show voters that we are capable of working with those with whom we do not agree on everything in pursuit of outcomes that improve people’s lives.

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | 12 Comments
John Kelly

Urgent Call to Action by Lib Dem MPs on Palestine

By John Kelly | Sun 31st May 2026 - 11:30 am

Recent statements from the UK government and its representatives have made one thing abundantly clear: the Government fully understands both the dire situation on the ground in Palestine and the extent to which Israeli actions are violating international law. Sadly, what remains absent is any willingness to translate that recognition into meaningful action.  There is an opportunity for our MPs, when they return from recess next week, to make a difference.

Speaking at the UN Security Council this week, the UK’s Chargé d’Affaires to the UN, Ambassador James Kariuki, described in no uncertain terms the appalling suffering of the people in Gaza as a result of the Israeli blockade. He referred to children “living amid sewage, parasites, and disease”, “images of newborn babies with rat bites on their faces” and UN reports of “widespread infestations now affecting almost 1.5 million people.” The statement also condemned the taunting of flotilla activists in a recent video posted by Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and called for an end to escalating settlement expansion and the forced displacement of Palestinians in the unlawfully occupied West Bank.

A similarly stark tone was adopted in a joint statement issued this week by the UK and allies on Israel’s rapidly advancing E1 settlement project, which would sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, making the territorial continuity necessary for a future Palestinian state virtually impossible. The statement could hardly have been clearer on the illegality of the project. “The E1 settlement development would divide the West Bank in two and mark a serious breach of international law,” it warned, adding that businesses “should not bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments” and should be aware of the “legal and reputational consequences” of participating.

Unfortunately, this strong rhetoric which follows nearly two years of handwringing by Labour Ministers, does not appear to have been matched by any consequential action. Despite its repeated expressions of concern, the UK continues to permit trade with Israel’s illegal settlements, continues to provide military assistance and arms exports to Israel, and remains unwilling to take steps to force a change in Israeli policy.

The warning to businesses over E1 ultimately amounts to little more than handwringing unless now backed by actual consequences for companies that proceed regardless. What is required is a serious package of measures proportionate to the gravity of the situation. That should include sanctions, including fines, for any UK firms that bid for tenders relating to settlement construction in the E1 area or elsewhere in Palestine, as called for by Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Calum Miller in his recent letter to the Foreign Secretary. As Calum’s letter notes, the government response should also include implementing the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding policy of banning all trade in goods and services with Israel’s settlements.

It is encouraging to see the Liberal Democrats leading on this issue, not only because of the deteriorating situation on the ground, but because there is now a genuine political opening to push the Government to go further. 

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 15 Comments
Tom Arms

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 31st May 2026 - 9:30 am

Cuba

A $100 million would go a long way to alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused by the US blockade of Cuba.

The island’s communist government has already made big concessions on the economic front in an attempt to appease the Trump Administration.

It has legalised small and medium-sized private businesses; abolished Cuba’s dual currency; opened more than 2,000 additional occupations to private initiative and allowed exiled Cubans to invest in the island’s economy.

On the political front they have been less forthcoming. Only a handful of political prisoners have been released and there is no sign of the regime introducing freedom of expression or a reform of its judicial system.

There is also the additional problem of who distributes the aid should it be released. Havana says it will handle the distribution through established government channels. Washington says those channels are corrupt and the money must be distributed by the Catholic church.

Finally, there is the question of whether the $100 million carrot is a mere ruse. That the Trump Administration will settle for nothing less than complete regime change; the dismantlement of Cuba’s socialist state and the return to pre-1959 style American domination of the Caribbean island.

To achieve that, Washington may just have to invade the island. They increasingly appear prepared to do just that. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz has been parked in the Caribbean. The Cuban president, 94-year-old Raul Castro, has been indicted for murder.

And finally, Cuban-American Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the military option is more likely than the diplomatic.

Israel

Benjamin Netanyahu has proven himself a tough man. Since the October 7 attacks he has launched wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, to say nothing of the continuing turmoil in the West Bank. Few Israeli leaders have confronted so many enemies on so many fronts.

But toughness alone will not win the forthcoming election. Opinion polls show his approval ratings at between 40 and 47 percent and Likud is trailing a coalition opposition. If Netanyahu is to survive politically, he must prove not only that he can start wars, but that he can end them—and win them.

In Gaza Hamas has been badly damaged but not destroyed. This week the government ordered the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to increase their occupation from 64 percent of the territory to 70 percent. Yet despite repeated declarations of imminent victory from both Jerusalem and Washington, there remains no clear political settlement and no obvious answer to the question of what happens to Gaza when the fighting finally ends.

The ceasefire in Lebanon is meant to be an integral element in the ceasefire in the Iran War. Yet Israel continues to fire missiles into Lebanon and has moved ground forces into the southern part of the country to create a security zone. Netanyahu says he sees no reason to “take his foot off the pedal.” For many Israelis, a security zone may look like a military necessity. For others, it looks suspiciously like another open-ended commitment.

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | Leave a comment
Peter Black

What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?

By Peter Black | Sun 31st May 2026 - 7:55 am

Listening to David Miliband at the Hay Literary Festival a few days ago, two things that he said struck me as interesting.

The first was that the Labour government had been elected to effect change, but they have not changed enough. The second related to the high number of young people who have left school with no education, employment or training opportunity. Where is the triple lock for that cohort, he asked.

Of course, both of these statements are easy soundbites, needing much more policy detail and commitment before any government can make a difference, but if, as is the case, people are disillusioned with Starmer’s administration, and are casting around for an alternative, then why have the Liberal Democrats not stepped into the breach?

Just over a week ago from the time of writing this, Harrogate MP, Tom Gordon, posed the question on Liberal Democrat Voice of what his, and my party, should stand for.

He pulled out three examples from the King’s Speech, where the Lib Dems could adopt a distinctive position. These were a full ban on conversion therapy, with no exceptions, Leasehold Reform and opposition to digital ID.

My purpose is writing this is not to disagree with Tom’s analysis but to seek to extend it to a fuller list of how the Liberal Democrats can promote a radical and bold programme for change that will make people sit up and listen, a broader canvass if you like.

My list is not comprehensive and there will be items that others will want to add or take away from it, but if we are to use the opportunities that present themselves to grow our party then we need a narrative that will capture people’s imagination.

Above all, we need an engaged leadership who are prepared to embrace an agenda for change in a serious and compelling way, without the stunts and gimmicks that have lost us support in the past. 

None of these suggestions are new, it’s just that the party has appeared too timid to fight for them in the past.

Continue reading »
Tagged | 22 Comments
Jack Meredith

Swansea relaunches – a small story about why young Liberals matter

By Jack Meredith | Sat 30th May 2026 - 11:48 am

After a short hiatus, the Swansea University Liberal Democrats are back. The Swansea and Gower local party, working alongside university staff and students, is reviving the society at a moment when both local and national politics need it most.

Student political organising in Wales is not new. The Bangor Debating and Political Society has been running since 1849, and generations of Welsh public life have passed through rooms like it. The Swansea society is a small addition to a long tradition, and a welcome one.

The standard line is that young people have walked away from politics. It is not true. On the issues that matter most to them, such as housing, climate change, and civil liberties, they are more engaged, more informed, and more morally clear than any generation before them. The problem is not apathy; it is our political culture, which locks out far too many young people and refuses to evolve.

This is where student societies matter. They are not a nice extra; they are the most reliable pipeline a political party has for engaging young people. Every councillor, organiser, activist, and candidate I have ever met found their politics in a room not much bigger than a seminar suite. Relaunching our society is not symbolic. It is infrastructure.

That same infrastructure is essential to rebuilding the Welsh Liberal Democrats after the 2026 Senedd election. In Swansea and Gower, we canvassed every day, throwing everything we had into getting Sam Bennett elected. There was not much more we could have done, but an active university society collaborating with us would have helped us secure and grow the youth vote. Re-establishing the society now and giving it the durability to last does two things at once. It gives young people a real voice in the party, and it ensures we never again fight a Senedd election without their organised support.

The proof of what that organising delivers came in May 2026, when Beth Rowe won the Fairwood by-election for the Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Liberal Democrats came from fourth place to take the seat from the Conservatives, the product not of luck but of people knocking doors, having conversations, and showing up week after week. That is what a serious local party looks like. A thriving student society would feed more energy straight into that effort, allowing us to replicate that result across Swansea and Gower, Wales, and beyond.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 4 Comments
Tom Arms

Observations of an Expat: The Elephant Returns

By Tom Arms | Sat 30th May 2026 - 9:24 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 12 Comments
Jack Meredith

Swansea relaunches: a small story about why Young Liberals matter

By Jack Meredith | Fri 29th May 2026 - 10:08 am

Apologies – this post has been removed for further editing by the writer.

Tagged and | 2 Comments
Toby Mortimer

Britain deserves better than a two-party trap

By Toby Mortimer | Thu 28th May 2026 - 1:02 pm

Every election, millions of people in Britain vote knowing their ballot probably will not matter.

If you live in a “safe seat”, your vote can feel irrelevant before you even enter the polling station. If you support a smaller party, you are constantly told you are “wasting” your vote. And if you back the winning party nationally, there is a good chance they will gain enormous power without anything close to majority public support.

This is not healthy democracy. It is managed frustration.

Britain’s First Past the Post voting system was designed for a different era — an era before modern political diversity, before devolved government, and before millions of voters stopped identifying with the old two-party tribes. Yet we still force 21st-century politics through an electoral system that rewards tactical voting over honest voting.

The result is a political culture built around fear instead of representation.

People are told not to vote for what they believe in, but against the outcome they fear most. Labour supporters are told to hold their nose to stop the Conservatives. Conservatives warn voters about Labour chaos. Smaller parties are squeezed out of debates despite representing millions of people nationwide.

And then Westminster wonders why public trust continues to collapse.

Proportional representation would not magically solve every problem in British politics. But it would create something we desperately need: a Parliament that actually reflects the country.

Under proportional systems used across much of Europe, parties win seats roughly in line with the votes they receive. That means cooperation becomes necessary. Consensus matters more. Politicians must persuade rather than dominate.

Critics claim coalition politics creates instability. But what is truly unstable about parties being forced to work together? What is stable about Prime Ministers changing repeatedly without public votes, or landslide majorities won on barely a third of the national vote?

The truth is that First Past the Post does not deliver strong government. It delivers unchecked government.

Continue reading »
Tagged and | 14 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Yi-Pei Chou Turvey highlights importance of properly funded childcare tailored to rural communities in first speech

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 27th May 2026 - 8:05 pm

So, another day, another episode of dissolving into tears as a Lib Dem MSP makes their first speech in Holyrood. Yi-Pei Chou Turvey is my friend and I cannot describe how thrilled I am to have her at Holyrood.

Her first speech today, on childcare, is one she currently lives. She has three children and so completely understands the complexities of finding good childcare. She was well placed to pull the SNP down to earth a bit from its self congratulatory parliamentary motion, pointing out that someone who was a baby when they came to power could have their own children now.

She called them out for expecting Councils to do lots of service delivery but not providing sufficient funding, of the impossibility of providing breakfast clubs over a large rural area, of the costs of childcare which often mean that parents – and let’s be real here, that’s most often mothers – cut back work or even leave their jobs completely. Yi-Pei talked about how our plans would help the parents who needed it most to enable them to stay in work which in turn would benefit the economy.

Watch her speech here:

 

The text is below:

Continue reading »
Tagged , , and | Leave a comment
Caron Lindsay

Duncan Dunlop MSP’s first speech: a compelling commitment to improving things for children in care.

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 27th May 2026 - 3:39 pm

Yesterday, our new MSP for the South of Scotland, Duncan Dunlop, made his first speech in the Holyrood Parliament and it had me simultaneously in bits, furious and relieved that vulnerable children in our care system now have a champion they can look to in Parliament to fight their corner.

He was withering in his criticism of the Scottish Government’s flailing reform of the care system. He described a horrible incident experienced by a young man who had just been rejected by his mum.  He read out the first names and children of care-experienced children he had known who had died, and saying he estimated that over 2 million days of life will not be lived by them and other care experienced young people who have died.

His critique includes the failed Promise, which was intended as the benchmark for the care system in Scotland.

Duncan, who is a former youth worker and Chief Executive of Who Cares? Scotland. He told the stories of young people who the state has failed.

Watch here.

The text is below:

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Lord William Wallace

National Conversations we need to have

By Lord William Wallace | Wed 27th May 2026 - 11:57 am

Nearly a year ago the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) set out its understanding of the transformed international environment this country now faces, and called for the government to lead ‘a national conversation’ on how we should respond.  Yet since then there has been silence from the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and only muffled warnings about Russian activities from the Defence Secretary – to the intense frustration of Lord Robertson and General Barrons, two of its authors.  Robertson has accused the government of ‘corrosive complacency’ in its passive response.

We desperately need a number of intense national …

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 3 Comments
Tom Reeve

Meet the Overtons

By Tom Reeve | Wed 27th May 2026 - 10:25 am

Two-thirds of the British public believe that ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth. That figure has risen ten percentage points since 2019. Trust in government is at record lows. Dissatisfaction with the NHS, with social care, with housing, with the basic functioning of the state, is at or near levels never previously recorded in four decades of the British Social Attitudes survey.

And yet support for more welfare spending has fallen to its lowest point since the survey began. Read those two facts together. The public is not saying the system is fine. It is saying the fixes on offer do not work. People have lost faith not in the idea of fairness but in the instruments that are supposed to deliver it. They are ready for a different argument. They are waiting for someone to say: the economy is a human-made system, and we can remake it.

So where are the Liberal Democrats?

I would like to introduce you to the Overtons. You will know them. They are in every policy working group, every conference fringe, every strategy call. They are the people who hear a proposal for genuine economic reform and say “that’s outside the Overton window” as if they have ended the argument rather than ducked it. They treat the boundaries of current political acceptability as load-bearing walls, when in fact they are furniture, and we are allowed to move them.

The Overtons are not bad people. They think they are being strategic. They think they are protecting the party from looking extreme. But they are reading the room they were in ten years ago. The public has moved. The Overtons have not noticed.

You can see where the energy is going. Reform UK is growing because it tells people the system is broken and someone is to blame. The Greens are growing because they tell people the system is broken and it can be rebuilt. Both of these parties, from opposite directions, are saying something the Liberal Democrats will not say: that the current economic settlement is a choice, not a fact of nature, and different choices are available.

The Overtons will tell you this is dangerous territory. They have three favourite objections. The first is that the economy is too complex to redesign, which is another way of saying we should leave it to the people who designed the current version. The second is that any serious challenge to market orthodoxy is socialism, and socialism does not work, as if the only two options are the status quo and the Soviet Union. 

Continue reading »
23 Comments
Michal Siewniak

From selling donuts to being “chained”, and why this is not about the “Mayoral jewellery” 

By Michal Siewniak | Wed 27th May 2026 - 8:55 am

Michal Siewnak as mayor of Welyn HatfieldIt was 21 years ago next month, when I landed at Stansted. I remember, as it almost happened yesterday. I didn’t think too much about it. My wife and I had a plan, stay a few months and go back to Croatia, where I had a job waiting for me. We came not for any employment reasons, but initially to visit our friend, who is a Catholic Priest. 

21 years later, we are still here! We packed 26 years of our lives in a rucksack and we tried, like many, to build our lives in the UK. We have never lived anywhere else, always here in a fantastic Welwyn Garden City. We made it our home. We’ve had ups and downs, moments when we doubted whether it was a good decision to stay in the UK. We struggled to enjoy mince pies at the beginning and I am still struggling to accept that many Brits drink tea with milk. Yes, it is drunk with lemon! However, we always tried to do our best; to integrate, but most importantly to contribute in a number of different ways. This hasn’t changed. 

Although I am politically minded, my decision to stand in the Local Elections wasn’t necessarily driven by politics as much. As a keen activist, I was keen to demonstrate that we all have a unique set of skills, often different, but we all have a lot to give. Throughout my years in the UK, but also previously in Poland, Croatia and Italy, I felt a sense of service and desire to, collectively, build bridges not walls, always seek opportunities to make a difference, empower, inspire and motivate others to do the same. We have achieved so much. I also wanted to challenge stereotypes and assumptions. Guess what? I might be Polish but I have no manual skills. 

Continue reading »
Tagged , and | 10 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Nigel Jones
    @Mick Taylor, I agree we must be concerned about income inequality in current circumstances, though overcoming this is about taxing the rich, better public serv...
  • Nigel Jones
    @Mick Taylor, you are right to focus on strategy since we have plenty of policy, but i think we also need a vision and better messaging. It is easy to have stro...
  • Nigel Jones
    The New Deal graphic is very helpful but of course not perfect. As to preventing Reform from winning, we need to be an anti-establishment party as Chris Bowers ...
  • Nigel Jones
    It is certainly true that community politics is insufficient for long term gain. That was my experience in 13 yrs as a councillor and still active locally; at o...
  • Katharine Pindar
    Splendid stuff, well done Yorkists! 'The New Deal' seems a great idea in itself. Your graphic shows, however, how much work will need to be done to assert ourse...