Liberal Democrat Voice

Our place to talk – an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK.

The most-read independent website by and for Lib Dem supporters. Not paid for by trade unions or millionaires.

Advert

A tribute to Nina Roberts #LibDemDog

By Ed Fordham | Thu 30th April 2026 - 7:50 pm

I’m sure people in all parties have dogs – but one thing I have learnt is that dogs and animals matter for Liberal Democrats. Animal welfare runs at the very core of much of what we stand for as was illustrated by the campaigns of Adrian Sanders MP, for example.

At parliamentary by-elections, so often the vital injection of electoral energy into our party lifeblood, there is often an animal hero at the heart of our campaign, the result and our story-telling.

Last night, Nina, beloved dog of Cllr Pete Roberts, and by-election stalwart, crossed the rainbow bridge after 14 human years of faithful service.

She was an exceptional dog: a lanky, brindle pup with white socks on her paws. Back at the beginning of their faithful partnership when Nina tapped her paw on the bars of the cage, she stole Pete’s heart.

Nina, NinaBo, bear, wolf, hyena, campaign wonder-dog. She had so many names and so many friends gathered over years of by-election attendance and campaigns.

Nina had five television appearances and of course the the well-known anecdote “I know that dog, she always turns up at places we can win, I need to get there tomorrow”. And that was just based on the photo on the first day in the North Shropshire parliamentary by-election (won by Helen Morgan MP).

For us Liberal Democrats we often talk about the family, and the loss of someone is a loss to all of us, but the pets and the quirks matter. In my own campaign in my own division Sparky the Husky is without a-doubt an electoral asset.

The warm reception and the depth of affection of Jennie the guide dog and Steve Darling MP from Conference and the wider Party tells you a lot about how much that family matters.

Continue reading »

Posted in Obituaries | 1 Comment

Advert

Owen Hart deserved better: The Liberal Democrat case for fairness, safety, and dignity in professional wrestling

By Jack Meredith | Thu 30th April 2026 - 12:23 pm

For as long as I can remember, I have loved professional wrestling: the pageantry, the storylines, the ability to suspend reality, even for an hour, and immerse myself in the world of powerhouses and body slams.

But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to appreciate the pressure that professional wrestlers are under to perform, night in and night out. For many people, wrestling is simply “fake”, but it’s more than that. The family of Owen Hart knows all too well about the human cost of the industry, as do thousands of other families.

In 1999, during the WWF pay-per-view “Over The Edge”, Owen Hart was set to portray his comical “Blue Blazer” character, a superhero that would regularly partake in pratfalls. On the day of the pay-per-view, Owen Hart confided in fellow WWF employee and industry legend “JR” Jim Ross that he was uncomfortable with the stunt, citing a fear of heights.

On the night of the show, as Hart prepared to take flight from the rafters, tragedy struck. The harness that he had been wearing malfunctioned before Hart had even left the rafters, dropping him almost 80 feet to the ring below. The referee for the match, Jimmy Korderas, recalled how he thought he could hear screaming while he was in the ring, before the top rope bounced back and hit his hand. Upon turning around, there was Owen, lying on the floor, unconscious.

Owen Hart died that night, at just 34 years old.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged professional wrestling | 6 Comments

Is it time to reinvent the Big Society?

By Callum Robertson | Thu 30th April 2026 - 9:48 am

At the heart of British liberalism lies a steadfast commitment to the individual their dignity, their rights, and their potential. We believe that by empowering individuals, we can enable people to lead richer lives while building a stronger, more cohesive society.

But liberalism is not simply about individual freedom. It is also about community – the relationships, institutions, and shared responsibilities that bind us together. Indeed, it is the politics of community that has underpinned Liberal Democrat success in places like Sutton, Three Rivers, and Watford, where local leadership has demonstrated the power of collective action electorally.

Yet when we look across our country today, it is clear there is much more to be done. Nearly one million young people are currently not in education, employment, or training (NEET), while many more face long-term unemployment or economic insecurity. These are not just statistics they are individuals and families in need of opportunity, support, and hope.

Despite this, there is a striking lack of urgency at the national level to embrace community-driven solutions. Too often, policy is designed centrally and delivered at scale, rather than rooted in the lived realities of local communities. One only needs to look at the gross incompetency of the DWP in administering welfare to know that centralised government lets down the individual and leaves them feeling lost in a system that is not built for the individual.

And yet, there are promising signs of what can be achieved when communities take the lead.

In Watford, for example, Liberal Democrat councillors in Meriden and Tudor wards are working with Bridge the Gap to deliver a targeted jobs programme, helping unemployed residents get back into work. Already, more than 30 people have signed up to receive support such as CV writing, mock interviews and more. While modest in scale, the impact is tangible. For those individuals, access to secure employment can be life changing.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged big society | 3 Comments

Ed Davey speech: We can’t let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 29th April 2026 - 7:45 pm

Ed Davey announced today a package of new Lib Dem policy aimed at ensuring that foreign actors have less influence in our politics.

He called for:

Banning payments from X and other social media platforms to politicians in the UK, including MPs.
Prohibiting anyone who has served a foreign administration from donating to UK political parties, think tanks, or campaign groups.
Banning foreign-funded online political adverts altogether.

The party will pursue these through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill.

Watch here.

The text is below

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged democracy, MAGA, political funding, reform uk and twitter | 5 Comments

A year of being gaslit

By Tanya Park | Wed 29th April 2026 - 5:45 pm

The evidence, one year on from For Women Scotland

A year ago this month, a judgment about the meaning of words in a single Act was received, by many people, as a ruling on what I am.

The judgment in For Women Scotland ruled that trans women, including those holding a Gender Recognition Certificate, are not “women” for the purposes of the Equality Act’s sex provisions. What it did not do was make any ruling about identity, personhood, or what trans women are. That gap, between a statutory definition and a statement about human beings, is where a year’s worth of bad faith has taken up residence.

Open any right-leaning paper this month and you will find the same story, told and retold. “Public bodies, charities and businesses are failing to protect women and girls.” “Trans inclusion has run amok.” “The fightback is gathering pace.” “Brave women are speaking up.” “Sensible institutions are at last waking up to the threat.”

My trans siblings and I have been living through this false narrative for the past year.

So let’s look at this supposed threat. TransLucent submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information requests to major public bodies in England between 2022 and 2024. Across 40 large local authorities, 35 reported zero complaints about changing room facilities, five held no records, and the single incident logged involved a cis person in the wrong facility. Across 102 NHS trusts, not one reported a complaint from a cis woman patient about sharing a ward with a trans woman. Four complaints, across 382 public bodies, over three years. That is the empirical record.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged LGBT and supreme court judgement | 7 Comments

The Mandelson debacle – Implications, Part 2 (remedies)

By Paul Reynolds | Wed 29th April 2026 - 8:55 am

On 25th April 2026 I wrote in LDV about the longer-term political background to the Mandelson debacle, referencing his time on Lambeth Council and the rise of the anti-left in the Labour Party, alongside the formation of the SDP, which partially sprung from there (see yesterday’s Guardian article).

The main conclusion of the LDV article was that Mandelson’s political orientation was shaped by opposition to the far-left in the Labour Party, (reinforced by the militant left’s control of Lambeth Council in the 1970s and 1980s). Mandelson’s close colleagues then, such as the subsequently ennobled Roger Liddle, Matthew Oakeshott, and the late George Thomson (associated with BBC and ITV governance), not only opposed the far left, they also objected to Thatcherism. They particularly opposed those of the left and right who were sceptical of internationalism and EU cooperation, especially dissenters from the quasi-corporatist European ‘social democratic consensus’. Mandelson stayed in the Labour party to fight the left, but Oakeshott and Liddle joined the SDP, the latter, being close to Mandelson, rejoining Labour after 6 years.

This group, and many Labour colleagues, believed that the Labour Party would never regain power again if it remained under far left control, hostile to ‘right-wing’ mainstream media and the big business and finance organisations behind them. Being cosy with international business helped get PM Blair elected in 1997, and softened media scepticism towards PM Starmer in early 2024. However, in cosying up to big business and finance, attitudes to economic elites and oligarchs began to border on adulation.

But there is a serious policy problem. The last 19 years has seen a transformation of the world economy, since the 2007-8 financial crisis. The rise of the Chinese economy has occurred alongside the rise of ‘financialisation’ and concomitant authoritarian bureaucratisation in the West; leading to increasing economic concentration and ‘stealthy monopolisation’. Asset prices rise in a bubble, as long term economic performance in the ‘real sector’ declines, and Western governments ignore the fiscal & debt sustainability tsunami.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged economy, liberal democracy and politics | 4 Comments

What is the economy for? Liberalism already knows the answer

By Roz Savage MP | Tue 28th April 2026 - 9:10 am

What is the economy for?

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged featured, gdp and wellbeing economics | 40 Comments

Mathew on Monday – Ed Davey, Trump, and why legitimate criticism being blamed for violence is nonsense

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 27th April 2026 - 6:05 pm

Early this morning on GB News I debated a former Tory MP (and the presenter) on why there’s no connection between our leader’s criticism of the present occupant of the White House and the alleged political violence that took place this past weekend -the argument simply doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Let’s start with first principles. All political violence is wrong. Full stop. Whether it’s an alleged incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend, or the well documented events of January 6th, 2021 – when a mob of angry supporters of Donald Trump (arguably at his direct instigation) stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election result – it is always indefensible. But what is both intellectually lazy and politically dangerous is the attempt to draw a straight line between robust democratic criticism and acts of violence. That’s not analysis – it’s deflection.

Because let’s be absolutely clear: Ed Davey criticising Donald Trump is not the problem here. It is, in fact, part of the solution.

We live in democracies. That means leaders – whether in Washington or Westminster – must be open to scrutiny, challenge, and yes, criticism. If a British political leader cannot express concerns about the rhetoric, behaviour, and record of this U.S. President without being accused by some of somehow “inciting” events thousands of miles away, then we are in very troubling territory indeed. Especially as, at the same time, I was being told that no one in the States has heard of the Lib Dem leader and that he has ‘no impact’ across the Atlantic.

Even as presented, the argument collapses under its own weight. Because it implicitly suggests that the real issue is not an act of alleged violence itself, but the existence of criticism that may have proceeded it. That is a profound inversion of responsibility.
And it also ignores the wider context. The United States has, in recent years, experienced a worrying increase in political tension and high-profile violent incidents, with experts pointing to the corrosive impact of genuinely inflammatory rhetoric and polarisation. To pretend that a British leader from the mainstream political centre is somehow the catalyst for that, or, indeed, plays any part in it whatsoever, is frankly absurd.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged birmingham, ed davey, keir starmer and political accountability | 7 Comments

This week in the Lords: 27-30 April (maybe) – “wishin’ and hopin’…”

By Mark Valladares | Mon 27th April 2026 - 4:22 pm

Fortunately, it’s not the hope that will kill you, especially in the upper chamber, but there is a high degree of uncertainty in terms of the week ahead.

Labour would doubtless love to prorogue on Tuesday, leaving the Lords to do so on Wednesday and avoiding the need to expose Sir Keir Starmer to another painful set of Prime Minister’s Questions, but there are still disputes between the two chambers on some key issues.

The Liberal Democrats have vowed to keep voting down the Government’s proposals in the Pension Schemes Bill allowing ministers to …

Continue reading »

Posted in Parliament | Leave a comment

Our health system is cutting healthy life expectancy. Why isn’t everyone furious?

By Tom Reeve | Mon 27th April 2026 - 1:51 pm

The Health Foundation published a report yesterday that should stop all Lib Dems in our tracks.

Healthy life expectancy in the UK has fallen by over two years over the past decade. The average person can now expect to live in good health only until they are just under 61. We are ranked 20th out of 21 comparable wealthy nations. Only the United States is worse. In more than nine out of ten areas of the country, people cannot expect to be healthy enough to work until the state pension age of 66 or 67. In one in ten areas, …

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged health inequality | 12 Comments

Post-growth ecological liberalism: A regenerative care economy within planetary limits

By Rodrigo Palmer | Mon 27th April 2026 - 11:24 am

Whether our economies can absolutely decouple from environmental harm at the scale required to mitigate the worst consequences of the socio-ecological crisis is a central debate in sustainability academia. Whilst green growthers and techno-optimists consider these achievable, ecological economists and post-growthers like myself are much more sceptical.

There are many peer-reviewed articles on both sides, with the post-growth movement gaining significant gravitas in economic and policy circles. A global survey of 789 climate policy researchers revealed increased scepticism towards green growth approaches. Following these findings, a vision for how an ecological, post-growth liberal society could work is increasingly necessary.

Our growth economies are designed primarily to generate surplus capital efficiently to fulfil societal needs and wants. An economy designed in such a way is doomed by a hamartia: a constant structural dilemma. Balancing just economic development with protecting necessary ecological spaces, all whilst not aggravating the social-ecological crisis, is developing into a near-Sisyphean task.

Such a dilemma would be eased significantly in a post-growth liberal economy, because it would be designed for ecological stability. The economy would be regenerative by design, with the adoption of the circular economy and technological developments in resource efficiency being core to its success. Whether growth is desirable would be subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, considering both social and environmental factors.

A post-growth liberal economy is grounded in the precautionary principle in environmental law. Whilst the debate of whether absolute decoupling remains ongoing, urgent action is required now. The socio-ecological crisis is much too pressing and urgent to warrant absolute certainty in this central academic debate.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged post-growth economy and sustainability | 16 Comments

Welcome to my day: 27 April 2026 – waiting for a train…

By Mark Valladares | Mon 27th April 2026 - 8:40 am

Good morning, gentle reader, and I trust that you had an enjoyable weekend, not forgetting that, for some, perhaps many, of you, it wasn’t particularly restful. We’re in the end stage of election campaigns across Britain, with postal votes hitting doormats last week.

That said, for the gallant trio of Liberal Democrat parliamentarians running the London Marathon yesterday, they’ll be hoping for a short week and a seat on the train back to their constituencies.

Their times, for those of you who might be interested, were as follows:

Helen Morgan – 4:20:22
Tom Gordon – 4:29:13
Wendy Chamberlain – 5:07:49

I have to admit that, as …

Continue reading »

Posted in Site news | 3 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 26th April 2026 - 10:30 am

United States

Mid-term election fever is starting to grip America. And it comes at a time when American’s trust in their electoral system – the cornerstone of any democratic state – is plummeting.

It is still six months before Americans troop to the polls to elect a third of their senators and all the members of the House of Representatives. But the candidates are busy at the hustings. This is mainly because American elections are a two-stage affair. Stage one the parties vote to decide who will be their candidate and in stage two the winners of the “primaries” compete for the main prize.

But will the elections be free and fair? Only 20 percent of Republicans think they will be, 25 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of Independents.

For this lack of trust, we can thank the current resident of the White House. His never-ending allegation that the 2020 presidential elections were stolen and claims that the current mid-term elections are likely to suffer the same fate have encouraged his MAGA base—and others to deny the veracity of any election result.

Actually, polls show that distrust in Americans started at the turn of the century with the Gore v. Bush presidential election. It recovered under Obama but then took a major beating when Trump came along. Basically, his assertion is that it is inconceivable that people would vote against him. Therefore, it is impossible for Donald Trump – or anyone he supports – to lose an election.

Democrats claim that to ensure that he wins, Trump will go to any length, including creating conditions that allow him to declare martial law to prevent elections being held. They also fear that he could send armed ICE agents to key voting districts to intimidate African American and Latino voters from turning up to vote or simply declare some votes invalid.

All of those measures would be illegal and would be quickly challenged and reversed in the courts. But then the courts themselves could be used by both parties to challenge results with which they disagree. This could result in delaying the seating of elected representatives and bring the electoral process into further disrepute.

Republicans fear that the Democrats will flood the voting booths with illegal immigrants and claim this has been a feature of past elections. It is true that some illegal immigrants have voted and that they voted Democrat. But the issue is a major red herring. In 2024, Michigan recorded the largest number of attempted votes by illegal immigrants – 15 out of 5.7 million votes cast. Other states recorded either single digits or no cases at all.

The House of Representatives Committee on House Administration is tasked with the job of adjudicating any disputed elections to the US House of Representatives. To try and head off any Trumpian-backed disputes, committee member Joe Morelle has produced a list of 150 ways that Trump may try to unfairly influence or block elections.

These have all been discussed with state election officials who are responsible for organising and monitoring elections (the federal government is expressly forbidden from involvement in elections). Whether that is enough remains to be seen. Certainly, the stakes are high in November. A Republican victory would mean two more years of Trump unfettered. A Democratic landslide—which is widely predicted– could lead to a third impeachment or, at the very least, a Trump White House encumbered by endless congressional investigations.

Iran

Chaos, chaos everywhere, with no end to the Iran War in sight.

Both Tehran and Washington are hotbeds of infighting and backstabbing without the sign of any clear leadership which is a prerequisite to end the war.

In the Pentagon this week, Secretary of Defense/War Pete Hegseth fired John Phelan, who as Secretary of the Navy was responsible for organising the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports.

No reason was given for the “immediate” sacking of Phelan, but it has been widely reported, that Hegseth was annoyed with Phelan going behind his back to speak directly with the president.

Since the fighting began, Hegseth has also fired Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, and Jacqueline Smith, editor of the editorially independent Pentagon newspaper “Stars and Stripes.” Since taking office, the former TV presenter has sacked more than a dozen senior generals and admirals.

As for Trump himself, his strategy appears to consist of a series of rolling ultimatums as he goes from calling on the Iranian people to rise up; to bombing Iran into the “stone age;” to joint management of the Strait of Hormuz to naval blockade….

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged gulf states, iran and us mid-term elections 2026 | 5 Comments

The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us

By Mo Waqas | Sun 26th April 2026 - 8:30 am

I’ll be honest. When I first started researching hypersonic missiles and the Falkland Islands, it felt like a subject more suited to a defence think-tank than a Lib Dem blog. But the events of the past 48 hours have changed my mind and I think they should change yours too.

Argentine President Javier Milei has declared that he is doing “everything humanly possible” to return the Falklands to Argentine hands. That alone would be manageable. What is far more alarming is the backdrop: a leaked Pentagon memo has proposed withdrawing American diplomatic support for British sovereignty over the islands as punishment, apparently, for Britain’s refusal to participate in US strikes against Iran. In a single week, the two pillars Britain has traditionally leaned on: the Special Relationship and Argentine diplomatic restraint have both wobbled badly.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in the rule of law, self-determination, and the rights of people to choose their own future. In 2013, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain British. That democratic mandate is beyond question. Our obligation to defend those 3,200 people is not optional, it is constitutional and moral. But right now, I am not convinced we have the tools to do it quickly enough.

Here is the uncomfortable truth about our current Falklands garrison. RAF Mount Pleasant hosts between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel, just four Typhoon fighters, Sky Sabre air defence batteries, and a single patrol vessel. It is a holding force brave and professional, but not one designed to resist a determined modern assault alone. In 1982, Argentina invaded partly because a token garrison and the rumoured withdrawal of HMS Endurance convinced Buenos Aires that Britain wouldn’t or couldn’t respond. We must never allow that miscalculation again.

The problem is geography and time. A carrier strike group sailing from Portsmouth takes approximately 15 days to reach the South Atlantic, travelling around 500 miles a day. In those 15 days, our small garrison is essentially on its own. That is the window any adversary would exploit.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged defence, falklands, hypersonic missiles and international | 18 Comments

How to support Tom Gordon, Helen Morgan and Wendy Chamberlain in the London Marathon

By The Voice | Sat 25th April 2026 - 2:30 pm

Three of our MPs will be on the carb loading today as they prepare to take part in the London Marathon tomorrow.

Tom Gordon, Helen Morgan and Wendy Chamberlain are tackling the 26 mile, 385 yard course starting in Blackheath and finishing on the Mall.

Here at LDV Towers we have our app set up to track them, despite our slight reservations about technology that allows you to do this. Helen’s number is 62224, Tom’s is 59608 and Wendy’s is 72506.

It would be incredibly …

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 1 Comment

The Mandelson Debacle – some implications

By Paul Reynolds | Sat 25th April 2026 - 12:29 pm

How did His Majesty’s Government get itself in such an integrity-destroying tangle over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador to the USA? The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, 10 Downing Street, Cabinet Office, Security Services and the senior Civil Service have all faced serious potential reputational damage. What’s at the root of this?

Flashback to the late 1970s and early 1980s. To an extent the early 1970s was the heyday of Soviet Socialism. There was much admiration of the Soviet system even among the British middle classes, albeit more in theory than in practice. At my university there were several active political groups; the Revolutionary Workers Party, the Revolutionary Workers and Trotskyists, the Spartacist League, and the Communists, with the Labour group dominated by Militant. There was a small Tory contingent (mostly engineering students) and three Liberals.

The Labour leadership, including PM Callaghan, struggled with limited success to keep the party mainstream and less ‘ideologically left’. Thatcher countered successfully with a quasi-ideological ‘free market/small government’ approach in 1979, appealing to working class ‘cloth cap-italists’. Notwithstanding, the leftward drift of Labour continued and the leftist Michael Foot became leader, badly losing the 1983 election. Neil Kinnock replaced him and, blaming the far left for the defeat, took on the radicals. The infighting crippled the party and they lost the 1987 and 1992 elections (with much help from the right wing anti-Labour media).

Two years after Thatcher was elected, the Labour Party divided between those who wanted to stay and attempt to seek power without the left, and those that saw Labour as unreformable. The latter formed the SDP (later merging with the Liberals) and the former seeing future Labour success in recognising the power of big business and media moguls

Peter Mandelson was the exemplifier of the ‘recognise where power lies’ approach. He had seemingly agreed to join the SDP (he handled my national publicity when I was elected as a Liberal Councillor in Lambeth) but in the end decided to stay with Labour and implement the ‘power-realism’ approach. On the night of my election, at a party in Albert Square, out came his now famous Black Book and he almost ‘instructed’ editors and journalists to write up the story ‘along the lines suggested’. Mandelson was very effective indeed. He appeared to know every journalist, editor, and media owner in the UK (and their foibles), and could apparently make or break careers.

This approach formed part of the idea that if Labour didn’t get cosy with the media bosses, and big business and finance behind them, they would never enjoy power again.

Not all Labour moderates agreed, but Mandelson and colleagues had a logical ace up their sleeve. If Labour were out of power permanently, they couldn’t do anything for the poor or “working people”. Being close the big business meant that they could at least do something, and something is better than nothing.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged business and political party funding | 9 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Energy Security

By Tom Arms | Sat 25th April 2026 - 9:20 am

Energy Security. The Ukraine War made it a hot topic for a Europe dependent on Russian oil and gas. The Iran War – alongside the climate change debate – has revived the issue for the rest of the world.

The world’s main fossil fuel production centres are unstable. As a result, demand is growing to replace oil and gas with renewable energy. Furthermore, the renewable energy should be produced in areas which the consuming countries control. Many countries are already doing just that. Some better than others.

Surprisingly, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” America does well when it comes to renewable sources of …

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged energy security | 2 Comments

ALDC by-election report, 23rd April

By Joe Nutt | Fri 24th April 2026 - 4:19 pm

There were two principal council by-elections this week, both of which had a Liberal Democrat candidate on the ballot.

Salford City Council, Barton & Winton

The first by-election of the week took place on Wednesday in Salford. It was triggered by the sad passing of former Labour councillor David Lancaster MBE, who was widely regarded as England’s longest-serving councillor after six decades of service. There was significant controversy surrounding the timing of the contest, with Reform UK forcing the by-election despite local elections being scheduled for Salford in just two weeks’ time.

Turnout is generally low in Barton & Winton, and across Salford, but it was particularly poor on Wednesday at just 17.82%. Reform narrowly beat Labour by 33 votes in this long-term “Red Wall” ward. Labour also found themselves outflanked on the left by the Greens, part of a pincer movement that is becoming an increasingly common feature of the current political landscape.

This has never been a strong area for the Liberal Democrats, but a massive thanks to Antony Duke for standing and ensuring local residents had the choice to vote Lib Dem.

Reform UK 676 – 34.9% (new)
Labour 643 – 33.2% (-29.1)
Green Party 363 – 18.7% (+4.0)
Conservatives 118 – 6.1% (-8.2)
Liberal Democrats 94 – 4.9% (-3.8 )
Independent 44 – 2.3% (new)

Reform UK GAIN from Labour

Turnout: 17.82%

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged aldc local government by-elections | 22 Comments

In 2028, the Democrats must not repeat their ‘Tim problem’

By Samuel Jackson | Fri 24th April 2026 - 2:19 pm

Despite it being more than two years away, there is a great deal of interest in the 2028 US presidential election. As such, there is fierce speculation about who the Democrats’ candidate will be. While it is a fool’s errand to definitively say who that will be – given the candidacies of past ‘shoo-ins’ such as Edmund Muskie or Gary Hart – it may be worth considering who their running mate could or should be.

The role of Vice President is not insignificant. Fifteen out of forty-five Presidents previously served as VP, with eight directly succeeding following deaths in office and one following resignation. As elected representatives, they cannot be fired or dismissed like appointed Cabinet secretaries. And as President of the Senate, they can cast deciding votes to resolve ties over budgetary bills.

During elections, running mates are meant to serve as campaign assets, balancing out a ticket geographically, ideologically and personally to gain wider appeal. As this position is not determined through primaries, it is up to successful nominees under advisement to consider and select the best possible running mate.

Democratic anxieties about 2028 stem from recent memories of 2016 and 2024. In 2016, US Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine served as Hilary Clinton’s running mate, and in 2024 Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz served as Kamala Harris’s. The losses of these tickets to Donald Trump – while baffling – may be attributable to several factors, the choice of running mate should not be dismissed.

Geographically, neither Tim gave their respective tickets an advantage as they both came from reliably Democratic states on the peripheries of key US regions they were meant to represent (the South and the Rust Belt). As the Electoral College means that elections hinge on outcomes in a handful of swing states, there was no benefit having both halves of the ticket come from safe states.

Demographically, both Tims were meant to be ‘inoffensive’, balancing out tickets headed by women, seeking the highest office in a country where many voters are sceptical about the idea of a female President. While there was speculation that Clinton could nominate Elizabeth Warren, Harris voiced in her memoir 107 Days that her preferred choice of Pete Buttigieg was too risky, the combination of a black woman and a gay man potentially alienating voters. This has led to the belief that the next Democratic nominee needs to be a straight, white man.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged 2028 US election | 1 Comment

With one bound….? Starmer’s Houdini act

By David Vigar | Fri 24th April 2026 - 11:00 am

What just happened at Westminster? Does anyone else think Keir Starmer played MPs and the media like a violin this week?

On Monday, I thought at least one MP would ask the simple and obvious question. “Why did the PM appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington nine days after receiving a briefing that informed him that: ‘Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail in 2009.’”

Surely that explosive sentence should have been enough, if not to block the appointment, at least to postpone it pending investigation.

The sentence, from a report by JP Morgan, speaks volumes. It indicates that Mandelson not only knew Epstein, but knew him well enough to stay in his house. It shows that Mandelson stayed there when the owner was in prison for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18 – and when he was the UK Business Secretary. That suggests a close and unethical relationship. It also suggests Mandelson remained willing to take huge risks, not learning from his two previous dismissals from Cabinet.

The briefing, titled Advice to the Prime Minister, is dated 11 December 2024 and is available among the documents released by the government.

It repeated JP Morgan’s comment that Epstein had a “particularly close relationship” with Mandelson. And it contained a copy of an email from Mandelson to Tony Blair’s office in 2002 where he calls Epstein his friend and says he is “young and vibrant” … and “safe”.

Red flags waving. Alarm bells ringing. Massive issue. All ignored.

So how did Starmer dodge that smoking gun this week? First, he brushed over it. Second he found a smokescreen.

In his statement, he covered the briefing thus: “A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December.”

Hang on … So Mandelson answered questions the day before Starmer received the brief? So what did he say? The briefing is silent.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged keir starmer and peter mandelson | 9 Comments

Why A&E must stay free. But funding must change.

By Jean-François Burford | Thu 23rd April 2026 - 10:22 am

Few institutions define modern Britain as strongly as the National Health Service. Created in 1948 under the leadership of Aneurin Bevan, the NHS was founded on a simple but powerful promise: Healthcare would be free at the point of use, based on need rather than ability to pay. For generations this principle has been a source of national pride. Yet today the NHS faces unprecedented pressure, and unless we are prepared to rethink how it is funded, that founding promise itself may become impossible to sustain.

Demand on the system has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Britain has an ageing population, chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are increasing, and advances in medical technology, while lifesaving, are also expensive. Accident and Emergency departments, in particular, have become the frontline of these pressures. Long waiting times, overcrowding and staff burnout are symptoms of a system that is trying to do more than its current funding model can realistically support.

The debate about the NHS often becomes polarised. On one side are those who fear any change represents the creeping privatisation of healthcare. On the other are voices calling for a more market-driven model, similar to that of the United States. Both positions miss an important point. Reforming the system does not have to mean abandoning the core values of the NHS. Instead, it can mean modernising how the system is funded while protecting the principle that no one should be denied care when they need it most.

One possible solution is to preserve free access to emergency services while introducing a shared funding approach after initial assessment. Under such a model, anyone could still walk into an A&E department and receive immediate care without charge or paperwork. Treatment would begin exactly as it does now, guided only by medical urgency.

Once the patient has been stabilised and assessed, however, the cost of treatment could be shared between public funding and private insurance. A simple example might involve a 50/50 split: half funded by the state and half covered by an insurance provider. No one would be turned away or left with an unaffordable bill.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged accident and emergency and NHS | 30 Comments

South Cambridgeshire proved it works. It should be Lib Dem policy

By Tanya Park | Wed 22nd April 2026 - 1:55 pm

In July 2025, South Cambridgeshire District Council did something no other UK council had done. It made the four-day week permanent. Not as a trial, not as a temporary arrangement, but as the way the council works. Its staff complete 100% of their work in 80% of the time, for 100% of the pay. The government told them to stop. They didn’t. The results came in: £371,500 in annual savings, a 120% rise in job applications, a 40% fall in staff turnover. Services maintained. Budget improved. Staff retained.

South Cambridgeshire is a Lib Dem council. This is our proof of concept. And we have not built on it.

That is the question this piece wants to ask, directly and without much diplomatic padding: why not?

Ed Davey said publicly he was proud of what South Cambridgeshire had done. Bridget Smith, the council leader, spoke at the 2024 autumn conference about having “sown the seeds” for a serious party debate. Eighteen months on, it is still not party policy. The seeds appear to still be in the packet.

The political landscape has shifted in the meantime. Labour committed to a 32-hour week in its 2019 manifesto and then buried the policy under Starmer, a senior adviser telling journalists flatly it was “a decision for individual businesses.” The Employment Rights Act does not touch working hours. Twenty-five councils have debated following South Cambridgeshire’s lead. Iceland, Portugal, and a 61-organisation UK trial have all produced evidence pointing in the same direction. The 4 Day Week Foundation is recruiting for two fresh pilots in 2026. The momentum is building, and the main Westminster parties are standing well back from it. That is an open goal. And it has our name on it.

The case for the four-day week is usually made in the language of productivity and well-being, and that case is strong and well-documented. But the more interesting argument, and the more distinctively liberal one, is about freedom. Specifically, about who gets to decide how their hours are spent.

The current working week was not designed for most people’s lives. It was built around a particular kind of worker: male, without primary caring responsibilities, in reasonable health, with someone else managing the domestic infrastructure. That design has never been seriously revised. Around five to six million people in Britain provide unpaid care, the majority of them women, and they are paying a daily time penalty the system imposes without acknowledging it. The carer who has quietly given up on promotion because she cannot afford the extra hours. The disabled worker who has used every hour of flexibility on medical appointments and arrives already depleted. The low-paid warehouse worker who wants to do an Open University course so they can have a chance at the career they want. These are not edge cases. They are the people for whom the current settlement does not work, and for whom a shifted baseline would mean something real.

Liberalism has always been, at its best, about more than leaving people alone. It is about creating the conditions in which people can actually shape their own lives. Time is one of those conditions. An extra day is not a perk. It is, for a great many people, the difference between a life that is merely endured and one that is actually lived. That is a liberal argument. It belongs to us more naturally than it belongs to anyone else.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged four day week, lib dem councillors and south cambridgeshire council | 27 Comments

A single point of failure: Why we need the NHS to remove Palantir.

By Martin Wrigley, Rebecca Jones, Theo Brown | Wed 22nd April 2026 - 12:55 pm

Most of us by now will have heard of the tech giant Palantir, and its deal with the NHS to build a federated data platform.

Putting to one side the influences of Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Peter Mandelson in dodgy looking tech deals, revolving doors and high-pressure lobbying, the more we look into it, the more questions the NHS Palantir deal raises.

My team and I have been investigating and asking questions in Parliament. Last week I, (Martin) secured a Westminster Hall debate on the Palantir issue, and I made the case that Palantir’s implementation of the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) has the wrong contract, the wrong solution and the wrong supplier.

I’m sure most of us at some point in our lives have looked online to try and find a program we need, only to find out to our frustration that you cannot buy it outright and must instead pay a hefty subscription cost. Now, imagine the same thing but instead of paying £50 a year you are paying over £330M that gives you no software, no improvements and no intellectual property at the end of the contract. That’s what the last government set up.

But let’s look past the outrageous terms and look at what the supplier has provided for the NHS in past contracts. With such a high price tag it must have excelled at previous tasks, right?

Well, sadly not. In Autumn 2020, Palantir won a £20 million contract for a border-flow system. After a year or two this was cancelled as it had no users and no useful function.

And then, despite having no prior expertise in health they were given a contract to help manage the data from the COVID vaccination program. Although that contract was a loss-leader, given for free…

After that, with influence from the NHS data team, Palantir won the 3-year contract in November 2023 for a Federated Data Platform. Intended to deliver AI insights into the NHS, this was to connect all 200-odd hospital trusts into a data warehouse and analysis tool.

This subscription service was meant to deliver 13 core capabilities. According to the national audit office and the supplier themselves, after three years they have partially delivered three or four of them.

When they appeared last year in front of the select committee that I sit on (Science, Innovation and Technology), the only improvement Palantir and the NHS team could name was an improvement in managing staff rotas to deliver a higher throughput for operating theatres.

Now I know this has been an issue for many years in the NHS, but technology has improved vastly, and today even relatively simple apps can do the logistics to rota staff.

Also, I do wonder whether this may be down to Government improvements in staffing and pay rather than the magic of Palantir.

In what world is this contract a good deal for the NHS?

Maybe it’s not a good deal, but at least the software will be beneficial to patients and improve treatment, right?

Well, there has been many attempts within the NHS to unify its systems through a single IT system. They have all failed bar some improvements towards it’s combined data dictionary. You would therefore expect Trusts and ICB’s to jump at the opportunity for Palantir’s FDP, but after three years we have about half of the trusts stating they are live on the FDP, with just a quarter reporting benefit.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged NHS and palantir | 3 Comments

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

By Ed Fordham | Wed 22nd April 2026 - 10:54 am

Photo Credit: Bradford Lib Dems

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged featured, jeanette sunderland and obituaries | 3 Comments

We must stand together against anti-Jewish hatred

By Gavin Stollar | Tue 21st April 2026 - 12:42 pm

Embed from Getty Images
The past week has forced many across our country to confront a deeply troubling reality: anti-Jewish hatred is not an abstract concern, but a present and growing threat here in Britain. Yet there remains a striking silence from parts of our society that have long prided themselves on standing against racism in all its forms.

In the space of just days, three arson attacks have targeted the Jewish community, including petrol bomb attacks on synagogues in Finchley and Kenton. It is only by sheer good fortune that these buildings did not suffer the same devastating fate as the Hatzola ambulances set alight in Golders Green last month. These incidents come only months after the murders at Heaton Park Synagogue on Yom Kippur, and against a backdrop of police data showing that British Jews are, per capita, far more likely to be victims of religious hate crime than any other group.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 13 Comments

Why does cautious Starmer keep getting it wrong?

By Tom Reeve | Tue 21st April 2026 - 10:51 am

Embed from Getty Images
Yesterday, Keir Starmer faced Parliament to explain how a man who failed his security vetting ended up as Britain’s most important ambassador. It is a question worth asking. But there is a deeper one beneath it: how does a prime minister who presents himself as the cautious, process-respecting antidote to Conservative chaos keep finding himself in exactly these situations?

The Mandelson affair is, in miniature, the story of this government. A political decision was taken — to appoint a Labour grandee to a high-profile role. Warnings existed. Red flags had been raised. The vetting process that was supposed to filter out exactly these problems produced a recommendation to deny clearance. And yet the appointment went ahead, with civil servants apparently acting on the understanding that the prime minister wanted it to happen. When it collapsed, spectacularly, Starmer said he was furious he hadn’t been told. The civil servant who overrode the vetting was sacked. The prime minister, once again, was the victim of events – or was he?

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 19 Comments

Mathew on Monday: is Keir Starmer the most incurious Prime Minister in British history?

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 20th April 2026 - 5:45 pm

There is something increasingly puzzling – and politically dangerous – about the way that Keir Starmer governs. It is not simply that things go wrong on his watch; every Prime Minister faces crisis, missteps, and the odd unforced error. It is that, time and again, Starmer appears oddly detached from the very events shaping his premiership. As if politics and government are things that happen to him, rather than things he actively directs.

That sense of detachment is beginning to harden into something more troubling: a complete lack of curiosity.

Effective leadership demands an almost relentless inquisitiveness – a desire to know what is happening, why it is happening, and what might be coming next. It requires a Prime Minister to probe, to challenge, to test assumptions, and, crucially, to anticipate problems before they spiral. Starmer, by contrast, too often looks like a man content to sail above the fray – until, inevitably, he is dragged under by a storm he neither saw coming nor seems prepared to confront.

We have seen this pattern repeat itself. Controversies emerge, decisions. Unravel, narratives take hold – and Downing Street appears on the back foot. The sense is not of a government firmly in control, but of one constantly scrambling to catch up with events. That is not simply a communications failure; it speaks to something deeper about how power is being exercised.

Of course, there will be those who argue that this is a deliberate style, that Starmer is seeking to rise above the noise, to avoid the hyperactive, personality-driven politics of recent years. That he is, in effect, trying to de-dramatise the office of Prime Minister. If so, it isn’t working.

Because the vacuum created by that approach does not remain empty for long. It is filled by speculation, by confusion, and by opponents who are only too happy to define the narrative in his absence. Leadership is not about constant noise-but it is about presence. And increasingly, that presence feels lacking. More fundamentally, there is a difference between calm authority and passive drift. The former reassures; the latter unnerves. At present, Starmer is very much in the second category.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged keir starmer, kezia dugdale, polling and stonewall | 14 Comments

This week in the Lords – 20-24 April 2026

By Mark Valladares | Mon 20th April 2026 - 3:46 pm

With the progation of Parliament approaching fast, it’s something of a “hanging around” week for those on the red benches, waiting for the Commons to respond to Lords amendments, either by rejecting them outright, accepting them in part, or negotiating a settlement. You can never be entirely certain how it might all work out, and with the Government distracted by events elsewhere…

Bills

As it was last week, the week is dominated by “ping pong”, starting on Monday with what is described as “consideration of Commons amendment and/or reasons” on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. Will the Lords press their amendments? Does the Salisbury Convention apply? We can only wait and see…

Tuesday is a day for Orders, with a curiosity being the Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026, which seeks to make good an error in calculating Ministerial and other salaries. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee takes up the story with its usual dry humour…

The Cabinet Office says the issue was identified when calculating entitled salary increases for 2023/24 and that work “immediately began to find a suitable way to address it”. It added that this was a “complex and technical issue that took time to work through”, particularly due to challenges in tracing historic paper records and applying the formula using historic Permanent Secretary pay. Nevertheless, we are surprised that it took three years to address the issue and that the nature of the problem—the law not being followed correctly and people being paid the wrong sums of money—did not result in the Cabinet Office taking steps to resolve it sooner.

More ping pong on Wednesday, with the Crime and Policing Bill and, potentially, the Pension Schemes Bill, facing further scrutiny from Peers.

It’s the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill on Thursday, with a second day set aside for the Victims and Courts Bill if needed.

And, to wrap up the week, Friday sees further debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It’s probably the last day of debate before the Bill formally runs into the sands. I’ve said all that I really can on this but can only repeat how much I regret the lack of a resolution.

Continue reading »

Posted in News and Parliament | Tagged angie harris, Joan Walmsley, malcolm bruce, shaffaq mohammed and william wallace | Leave a comment

Make Culture Really Count

By Jean-François Burford | Mon 20th April 2026 - 1:50 pm

Governments don’t just underestimate culture, media and sport, they depend on them, while systematically failing to sustain them.

In the UK, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stands as a formal acknowledgement that these sectors matter. In practice, it has become a symbol of something else: a gap between rhetoric and reality that has gone unchallenged for too long.

That gap is indefensible. The creative industries contribute £145.8bn to the economy, around 5.5% of GDP and the wider DCMS sectors account for close to a tenth of all economic output. They employ millions, grow faster than the wider economy, and project British influence globally. By any serious economic measure, they should be central to national strategy.

Instead, they are treated as optional.

This isn’t just a matter of perception; it is built into the system. At local level, most spending on arts, culture and sport is not protected. Councils are not required to fund it. When budgets come under pressure, as they have year after year, these areas are cut first. Libraries close. Youth services disappear. Community sport collapses. What is lost is not just access, but opportunity and once gone, it rarely returns.

This is not inevitable. It is the result of political design.

Nationally, the imbalance is just as stark. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport operates with a fraction of the budget of departments such as the National Health Service or the Ministry of Defence, despite overseeing sectors that generate a significant share of UK growth. This is not about affordability. It is about priority and a persistent failure to align investment with economic reality.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged culture | 2 Comments

What is the best way back into the EU?

By Mark Corner | Mon 20th April 2026 - 12:17 pm

I appreciated Gareth McAleer’s article in Lib Dem Voice on the economic power-up to be had from rejoining the EU, but while I support his desire to rejoin I think a different approach will be more effective.

Economic arguments are always difficult and precision hard to achieve. As the saying goes, an economist is someone who if you ask for a telephone number gives you an estimate. It would be better to say that rejoining the single market will be of obvious economic benefit and leave others to fill in the billions. The alternative view, the Boris Johnson idea that …

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged rejoin eu | 18 Comments