The Elections Bill isn’t good enough for a democracy under threat

Our democracy is under sustained attack. Repeated scandals and corruption have hollowed out trust, while powerful men who hate our democracy – from Silicon Valley to the Kremlin – undermine our social fabric and institutions. It is nothing short of a national crisis.

It has therefore been deeply frustrating to see the litany of lost opportunities in the government’s “Representation of the People Bill”. What is called for is transformation – to restore trust and make our brittle, fragile democracy more resilient.  This bill does not meet that moment.

In all its 186 pages, it manages to avoid measures that would meaningfully improve accountability of politicians, to stamp out corruption, or to address the unfairness of our backwards, outdated voting system. The elephant in the room – of record levels of public distrust and anger with our political system –  remains, it seems, totally ignored.

There are, of course, some worthwhile measures like automatic voter registration and more support for candidates. Most significantly, the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at sixteen for decades, and we are proud to have helped secure a provision that delivers this. But as I said in my speech “As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they – and everyone in our country, feel confident…. Confident that they won’t be bombarded by disinformation. Confident that their vote will count. Confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose.” I can’t honestly say this bill delivers on those things.

So where does that leave our party?

Ed and I are determined that Liberal Democrats use this bill to champion the changes our democracy really needs – on which we Liberals have a unique and proud track record. Fundamental to so many problems we face as a country is that we have a system which few trust, which rewards cronyism and which is vulnerable to the whims of foreign regimes and elites.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 1 Comment
Advert

ALDC by-election report, 5th March

There were five principal council by-elections this week, four of which had a Liberal Democrat on the ballot, up from just one last time these wards were contested.

In Kent, Ashley Wassall and the Sevenoaks team earned a quarter of the vote from a standing start, as the Conservatives picked up the seat from Independent. This is a good base to start from in the next campaign here. Good effort!

Sevenoaks District Council, Hextable
Conservative: 600 (38.9%, +19.3)
Reform UK: 406 (26.3%, new)
Liberal Democrats (Ashley Wassall): 367 (23.8%, new)
Independent: 108 (7.0%, new)
Green Party: 62 (4.0%, new)

Conservative GAIN from Independent

Turnout: 47.15%

In County Durham, there was a rare gain for Labour, who beat Reform UK. Thank you to Neil Thompson for standing here.

Durham Council, Murton
Labour: 1,004 (50.6%, +17.6)
Reform UK: 786 (39.6%, –4.5)
Green Party: 95 (4.8%, new)
Conservative: 61 (3.1%, –2.0)
Liberal Democrats (Neil Thompson): 38 (1.9%, –2.3)

Labour GAIN from Reform UK

Turnout: 24.9%

Posted in News | Tagged | 1 Comment

Why is anti-youth abuse in politics getting worse?

I’m lucky to represent an amazing area as a district and town councillor. Since I was elected at the age of 19, becoming Huntingdonshire’s youngest ever councillor, I’ve had a huge amount of support from the community, friends, family, officers, and councillors of all parties.

At the same time, I’ve also heard every “are you old enough for big trousers?” and “did you finish college last week?” jibe you can imagine.

Let’s be honest – most of the time that’s good humour. Young people in politics are rare, people find it unusual, and people are excited to see a young person engaging with council democracy.

But at times, there is genuine abuse thrown in young people’s direction – for being young. Certain incidents over the past few weeks come to mind for me.

This isn’t anything new, nor is personal abuse in politics generally. But it is getting worse. When I think back to early 2022 when I was trying to convince people to vote for me as a fresh face, they were incredibly welcoming to me (including those who weren’t going to vote for me). Even when people were sick of politics because of the Partygate revelations, I can only remember one or two doorsteps that gave me genuine grief for being young.

Unfortunately, like a lot of stuff in Britain right now – things have gotten worse since then. I’ve faced some pretty vindictive stuff based on my age recently. Nor am I alone in this – this isn’t a localised trend.

And anti-youth abuse is just one part of the massive challenges we’re facing.

Anyone in public office or politics expects to be held to account for our decisions, positions, and actions. That’s the sign of a healthy democracy. But personal abuse, including for being young, goes past this.

I’m incredibly lucky to have a great support network around me – a great council group and local party, friends and family, and the Young Liberals. But this trend just creates an environment where good people are put off from public service because of the toll it takes on them.

So why is this the case? I don’t think we can pin it on something specific. But the political temperature being as high as it is isn’t good for anyone.

And the longer it stays high, kept there by divisive populists, more good people will be driven out of roles of public service due to the abuse they face.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 5 Comments

Southwark shows how the Liberal Democrats win cities again

This week Southwark Liberal Democrats launched our manifesto for what will be our largest local election campaign in decades. After 16 years of Labour control, many residents feel the borough has been taken for granted.

Southwark also illustrates a wider challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: how we rebuild our presence in major cities. Much of the party’s recent growth has come in Tory-facing suburban and rural areas, but cities like London remain politically competitive and full of liberal minded voters looking for an alternative to Labour. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about becoming a national force again, we must prove we can win in places like Southwark.

We now have Labour in power at the town hall, City Hall and Whitehall. With power at every level, they can no longer blame anyone else when things go wrong.

Crime is rising, council tax continues to increase, services feel harder to access and the housing crisis is deepening.

Southwark now has the highest crime rate in South East London, yet police front counters have been closed by Labour and the number of community safety officers has been reduced. Complaints about council services are at record levels, and both the Housing Ombudsman and the national regulator have repeatedly found maladministration in Southwark’s housing service.

The housing picture is equally troubling. More than 22,000 households are on the social housing waiting list and we have 4,200 families in temporary accommodation,  yet fewer than 70 new council homes were started last year. Youth services have been cut back and seven schools have closed, leaving fewer opportunities and less support for young people and families.

After 16 years in charge, Labour have run out of excuses.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 2 Comments

Liberal populism could be our missing political language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 10 Comments

New Chinese spy case and our Defending Democracy policy draft

Wednesday’s disturbing news on UK democracy interference is the Met’s arrest and a new Chinese espionage case. Among the suspects is the spouse of an MP.

Nigel Farage — the leader of a party with a senior member convicted for aiding Russia — has rushed to attack Labour and Keir Starmer. To rebut this hypocrisy, we must press ahead with our efforts to get the Government to place China in the Enhanced Tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (‘FIRS’) in the planned Democracy Bill.

We must not only defend our democracy from foreign interference; we must also keep our community informed about the scale of Chinese interference activities in the UK. Reform seeks to undermine trust in our institutions through mocking statements. By contrast, our push for China’s placement on the Enhanced Tier under FIRS will strengthen democratic participation by improving safeguards and raising public awareness.

It should also require Ministers and relevant officials to brief elected representatives on the extent of China’s foreign interference in the UK. That could mean stronger scrutiny of the China Audit (see my previous article), or transparency about which overseas Chinese “community aid” groups are facilitated by the United Front Work Department.

Placing China in the Enhanced Tier of FIRS does not intrude on individual liberties. On the contrary, it protects civil liberties by increasing transparency around institutions, software, and social media platforms that serve the Chinese party-state. With an Enhanced Tier mechanism, we can better understand the breadth and depth of the Russia–China—and, to an extent, Iran—bloc that spreads disinformation, fuels populist far-right sentiment, and channels political donations.

We must also show that the Liberal Democrats are the true safeguard of Britain’s resilience—by building a stronger Europe—rather than Reform’s pandering to a unilateral Trump-style America.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment

“My life’s defeat would be emigration”: Encounters in Palestine during my recent visit in January 2026

Last month, I visited the occupied West Bank – against Foreign Office travel advise – to meet with Palestinian communities, hear their stories, and bear witness to the daily realities of life under Israel’s illegal occupation. As the daughter of a Holocaust survivor and a long-standing campaigner for Palestinian rights, I did not arrive uninformed. I have travelled regularly to the West Bank over many years and am well acquainted with the apartheid regime that Israel has established there. Yet the horrors I encountered still shocked me – not because they were new, but because of their scale, pace, and the growing sense of impunity surrounding them.

During our stay there were raids in towns including Jenin, Hebron and even Bethlehem. Each day, more raids, more arrests, and more land grabs. Palestinians spoke of living in a state of constant anxiety – of sleepless nights, stress-related illnesses, and a growing lack of faith in the ability of the legal system to protect them. Settlers can come, dispossess, and destroy, and the courts are often powerless to prevent this while the IDF largely supports and protects them.

In the village of Umm al-Khair in the South Hebron Hills, we saw a once-thriving community hemmed in by settlers on either side. The settlers have divided the village in two, building a road, planting Israeli flags, and stopping the villagers from reaching their grazing grounds. The villagers face constant harassment and countless demolition orders – even a patch of astroturf laid for children to play football has been slated for removal.

At the Tent of Nations, a Palestinian Christian family farm outside Bethlehem, nearby settlement infrastructure continues to expand, including a new road that cuts across the family’s land, preventing them from cultivating the other side. Daud, the Tent’s owner, uses legal means to protect his land but the Israeli courts keep delaying judgements and in the meantime the settlers encroach more and more.

In Bethlehem, we heard from those affected by Israel’s plans to clear Palestinians from the vicinity of the religious site Rachel’s Tomb. Representatives from Wi’am, a grassroots civil society organisation, told us how the IDF has been measuring and photographing their land and buildings situated right against the ‘security’ wall and adjacent to Rachel’s Tomb. Meanwhile, Clair Anastas, a Palestinian businesswoman, has only a few weeks to appeal the loss of her home, shop, and guesthouse as settlers nearby push to expand their illegal settlement.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 5 Comments

Why Ed Davey was wrong on ex pat rescue

I was pleased to hear most of Sir Ed Davey’s question following the PM’s statement on Monday.

I say most, because I thought he was doing well and saying the right things – until the unfair and unwarranted comments in his final sentences.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m not about to say that Isabel Oakeshott doesn’t deserve criticism, or indeed being brought down a peg or two; I’m absolutely all for that. However, given the seriousness of the events in the Gulf and of the consequences, it doesn’t seem to me to have been right or appropriate to make what came across as a pretty flippant comment, particularly after the sensible words he spoke before it. There’s a time and place for attacking people like her – this wasn’t it.

It’s also incorrect, though. Most people who have moved from the UK to Dubai aren’t doing it primarily to avoid paying tax. They’re not all bankers, or ‘influencers’, or ex-footballers. They’re teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers – people who have moved because they either can’t get a job in the UK or want to just enhance their own careers. After all, it was only a few weeks ago that Willie Rennie was pointing out the number of teachers who have left Scotland to go to places like Dubai because there’s no jobs at home.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 27 Comments

Power shared, not hoarded: finishing the argument

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

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

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

But there’s a step still to take.

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , and | 10 Comments

A democratic case for public ownership of utilities

Britain has spent the last few decades running a national experiment. We have taken essential infrastructure that behaves like a monopoly, we put it in private hands, and we hope competition somehow emerges. I can’t blame the utilities executives. They got lucky and landed the utilities in the 80s, like some awful game of Monopoly we still pay for. No risk and all reward, what a deal!

The results are familiar to anyone who has navigated unreliable rail services or warned their children of the dangers of swimming in the sea that was safe in their childhood. When a market is a natural monopoly, public ownership is not a nostalgic slogan, it is the prudent way to align economic incentives with the public interest.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 25 Comments

Towards a third way – a reformed, liberal Palestinian party

When I welcomed a delegation of British Liberal Democrats to Jerusalem and Ramallah last week, led by Gavin Stollar OBE and the Party’s Foreign Affairs lead, Calum Miller MP, I was reminded that politics, at its best, is not a transaction but a relationship. It is built on trust, curiosity and, above all, friendship.

In a region where suspicion is often the default setting, the simple act of sitting together – listening, disagreeing respectfully, and breaking bread – can itself feel radical. Our conversations were frank. They were searching. They were, at moments, uncomfortable. And they were deeply encouraging.

I write this for Lib Dem Voice because what I encountered was not a party looking for slogans, but a movement seeking understanding. The delegation came not to lecture, nor to posture for headlines, but to ask difficult questions: What do Palestinians owe to peace? What political renewal is possible? Where does responsibility truly lie? And who, among Palestinian actors, is capable of delivering a future compatible with liberal democratic values?

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 10 Comments

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

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 3 Comments

Mathew on Monday: What a Liberal Response to the Middle East crisis actually looks like

This morning I appeared on BBC Radio Leicester about the escalating situation in the Middle East. As ever with the region the headlines move fast, the rhetoric moves faster, and the human cost is felt fastest of all.

For me, this is not abstract. I have family members who live in Dubai. When tensions rise across the region, when missiles are launched, when airspace closes, and you read of security warnings flashing up on phones, it stops being a matter of general interest and becomes something deeply personal. You find yourself not as a commentator, but as a relative. You look at maps differently. You listen for tone as much as the facts. You check in with family to find out the latest and to ensure they’re safe and well.

That personal dimension only reinforces what I believe politically. A liberal response to crises like this begins with one simple principle: every human life has equal worth.
It sounds obvious, yet it is remarkable how quickly that principle is abandoned. People are reduced to labels, civilian casualties become statistics. Entire populations are spoken about as though they are monolithic, interchangeable, or even expendable. That is not liberalism. It is dehumanisation.
A liberal response rejects that instinct outright.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 3 Comments

Can we prevent Middle Eastern conflict dividing British politics and society?

Immediate domestic reactions to American bombing of Iran have displayed how divided British political parties are on Israel, Iran and US approaches to Middle Eastern politics. Priti Patel as Conservative shadow foreign secretary was firm in her support. Nigel Farage was even more enthusiastic and uncritical. Liberal Democrat MPs have been critical, and insistent that the UK should not become directly involved. Labour has been cautious, contributing only to ‘defensive’ operations against Iranian responses. The Greens have condemned the American attack. The old idea that politicians of all parties should stand shoulder to shoulder when international crisis threatens has long gone.

Attitudes to the USA partly shape this. But we have to be aware, in our ethnically and religiously diverse country, of the domestic dimension, and do whatever we can to limit bitter divisions abroad from becoming rooted within Britain. We have a valued and long-established Jewish community, many of whom are deeply unhappy about Bibi Netanyahu’s hardline policies but who nevertheless take their turn in guarding their synagogue and defending their community. We have also a growing Muslim community, from South Asia, Yemen, the Gulf states, Malaysia and East and West Africa – many first-generation immigrants, but most now their children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren. Younger British Muslims naturally feel solidarity with their Palestinian and Iranian counterparts. Relations between British Hindus and Muslims of South Asian origin have in some places been adversely affected by Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu nationalism, feeding into a narrative of Islam under attack.

Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Tagged and | 13 Comments

Lessons from Sparta

Back in the Brexit years, the European Research Group of hard-line Conservative MPs christened themselves the “Spartans”. Perhaps they were drawn to the image of an elite warrior brotherhood, standing firm against overwhelming odds. Or perhaps they admired Sparta’s reputation as one of the most austere and uncompromising societies of the ancient world. Either way, they might have profited from a closer look at how Sparta’s story actually ended — and why.

Sparta guarded its citizenship with exceptional rigidity. Full political membership was reserved for those born to two Spartan parents, and even then only after passing through an unforgiving system of military training and communal discipline. Foreigners were periodically expelled under a policy known as xenelasia.

Over time, this inflexibility proved fatal. The number of full Spartan citizens declined dramatically, from roughly 8,000 around 480 BCE to perhaps little more than 1,000 a century later. Military losses played a part, as did growing inequality in land ownership, but the core problem was structural: citizenship was so restricted that the ruling class steadily withered. A society that defined itself by exclusion gradually deprived itself of resilience.

There is an uncomfortable parallel here for modern nations confronting demographic decline. Across much of Europe and East Asia, birth rates have fallen well below replacement level while populations age rapidly. Nationalists insist the answer lies in boosting native fertility. Yet the evidence suggests this is far easier said than done. Hungary, under Viktor Orbán, has devoted vast public resources to pro-natalist policies. While these measures may have shifted the timing of births, the overall fertility rate remains well below replacement. Even generous subsidies cannot easily reverse deep social and economic trends.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 4 Comments

Multiculturalism at its finest

There is so much talk these days about integration, multiculturalism and ways in which people settle in after moving to a different area, country or a continent. The narrative, driven by a number of politicians and media outlets, is most of the time negative and selective. It is not created for a reasonable debate, rational discussion, but rather to steer division and hatred.

Now…I am saying that the multiculturalism doesn’t bring social, cultural and economic challenges. I am also not saying that I naively believe in open borders and building “happy-clapping” society. I am talking about finding a balance, pragmatic solution to an issue that is affecting millions of people; individuals and families at home, as well as everyone who made a decision to leave a particular country.

Last night, I was asked to step in for the Mayor of Welwyn Hatfield, Cllr Lynn Chesterman, and attend the South Asian Mass, which was hosted by the Our Lady’s Queen of Apostles Church in Welwyn Garden City. As I was sitting in the first row, observing the most beautiful service, I was reflection on how our small community gathering can be an example of “laboratory of diversity” and become a beacon of light and hope in our society.

I believe that some of our politicians create walls of divisions, often not because they care, but because their main focus is to score points and win the next election. These topics lends themselves well to the current political discourse, which is greatly influenced by widespread polarisation.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 21 Comments

Welcome the complications…

From time to time on this site there has been reference to the limited usefulness of left and right in terms of describing political parties and the boundaries between them – including Roz Savage’s recent piece. In a less fluid political landscape I can remember the Huddersfield West Liberal MP wrestling with this in the 1960s. One of the curious features of left/right models is that parties find it easier to use the tags to describe their opponents than to define themselves. So what alternative labels are there? Are progressive and conservative any use? The former tends to be more slippery than the latter. What “no change” means is usually easier to recognise than what “change” means because you cannot discuss serious social and political change without facing the question “what sort of change?” Is ”progressive” somewhat susceptible to Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty doctrine: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean”?

In the aftermath of the Gorton and Denton by-election I want to have a go at seeing if “non-conservative” can help us. It seems to me that the Greens managed to defeat two conservative political entities – Farage’s party and the part of the Labour Party that is in government. Reform UK may or may not be seen as a replacement for the Conservative Party. What the billionaires do with their donations will be a factor. My hunch is that the story will not be like that of the Ulster Unionists who were caught up in a process of parties being replaced in turn by slightly more extremist parties until power finally came to rest with the DUP. There is a chance that what is left of the present Conservative Party could end up with some sort of deal with whatever Reform looks like when Farage’s dictatorial style leads to his own demise.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 6 Comments

The Greens copied our playbook. We shouldn’t copy theirs.

Labour’s old coalition was always a coalition of convenience. On one side: socially conservative, economically anxious working-class voters, whose politics were shaped by trade unions, community, and a deep suspicion of those at the top. On the other: socially progressive, increasingly comfortable metropolitans, whose politics were shaped by universities, public service, and a belief that social liberalism was self-evidently correct.

These two groups shared little except a common enemy: the Conservative Party. That enemy is gone, at least for now. And without it, the coalition is falling apart.

Lib Dem CEO Mike Dixon sent members a thoughtful analysis of what happened in the Gorton and Denton by-election and what it means for us long-term. He said tactical voting was more fluid and more decisive than at any election in living memory, and we are better placed than any other party to receive anti-Reform tactical votes across a wide range of seats.

He concludes that the only barrier to success at the next election is our scale on the ground. Build the teams, recruit the candidates, deliver the leaflets, and the opportunity is ours, he says.

I agree on the value of a good ground game, but I fear that is only half the answer.

Ground operations matter enormously, but they are generally designed to motivate our supporters and those who are prepared to lend us their votes to go to the polls. They do not create supporters from nothing. What creates them is a clear, consistent national message about what voting Lib Dem will actually get you. 

In the coming political melee, we need to be clear whose side we are on. That means policies that are worthy of the emotional punch our campaigns can deliver.

The Greens show what happens when you get this wrong. Their politics rest on a false premise: that environmental seriousness requires slower growth, higher costs, and less development. Growth versus nature as a zero-sum game. It sounds principled. It is actually a counsel of despair – and in the middle of a housing crisis, it falls hardest on the people who need the new homes.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 27 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

State of the Union

What a politician omits to say is often more important than what he says. There were two significant omissions during President Trump’s record-breaking State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

The first concerned Ukraine and the second Iran. Tuesday was also the day that Ukraine marked the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion of their country. Notables from around the world gathered in Kyiv’s Maidan square to mark the occasion. Every Western country was represented – except the United States.

There was no American diplomat, politician or Trump-appointed delegate at this important and moving ceremony. The United States was conspicuous by its absence.

The Ukrainians were also hoping that somewhere in Trump’s speech there would be some mention of support for the Ukrainian cause. There was none. The only mention of Ukraine was in the context of negotiations which repeatedly fail because Trump insists on backing Russian proposals. These include the resignation of Volodomyr Zalensky; the ceding to Russia of all land that Russia currently occupies and more; the  neutering of the Ukrainian military and a pledge that Ukraine never join NATO. In short, total surrender.

Iran was mentioned in Tump’s nearly two-hour speech. But what was not mentioned was Trump’s intentions towards Iran. At the moment the largest concentration of US naval firepower since the 2003 Iraq War is gathered off the coast of Iran.  It includes two aircraft carrier groups which are comprised of two aircraft carriers, each with 75 fighter bombers and a complement of 7,000 personnel. Each aircraft carrier is supported by cruisers and destroyers, supply vessels, support ships and submarines. The cost to the US taxpayer is tens of millions per day.

Why they are there was omitted from Trump’s speech. Are they off the coast of Iran to threaten to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The ones that were “obliterated” earlier this year. Or are they in Middle Eastern waters to protect Iranian protesters—tens of thousands of whom have been slaughtered by their own government. Or are they there to demand the destruction of Iran’s missile programme. Or, is Trump demanding a regime change and a combination of all of the above.

The fact is that Trump has no clear plan and that is how countries become embroiled in “forever wars.”

Ukraine

How do you calculate a nation’s war morale? Its willingness to fight. Its resilience and ability to absorb blow after blow and retain an air of optimism.

The analysts at the CIA, Royal Services Institute (RUSI) and the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) as well as military attaches are experts at counting men, missiles, tanks and planes. They factor in population sizes and supporting economies; place them on the military/diplomatic scales and come up with what is called the “strategic balance.”

But what they fail to include—what they cannot include—is a calculation that represents a country’s willingness to fight.

At the start of the Ukraine War the Russian military was 4.5 times bigger than Ukraine’s. Its economy was nine times larger, and its population was 3.5 times bigger. As Trump would say: The Russians had all the cards.

Or so it would seem. After four years the Ukrainians fought mighty Russia to a standstill. Putin’s economy appears to be faltering and there are reports of Russian officers forcing their troops at a gunpoint into suicide assaults.

On Tuesday the Ukrainians marked the fourth anniversary of the start of Putin’s War with a moving ceremony in Kyiv. It appeared to reveal that the Ukrainians are as determined to drive Putin’s men from their homes as they were four years ago.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 3 Comments

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

Not Left. Not Right. Liberal.

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

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

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

That matters to us, and our future strategy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the alternative?

Open vs Closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power hoarded vs Power shared

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

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

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

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

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

This is not technocracy. It is democratic imagination.

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

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

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

Short-term vs Long-term

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 35 Comments

Ed Davey: “The UK can’t be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President”

I was relieved that a long drive to the rural Highlands of Scotland prevented me sitting in front of a news channel with my head in my hands for most of yesterday. The sight of Donald Trump in a baseball cap looking the exact opposite of dignity and statesmanlike calm did nothing to quell my anxiety levels.

It is absolutely clear that the Regime in Iran was awful – illiberal, disgustingly misogynist with no care at all for the human rights and freedom of its people. It’s hard to see how the actions yesterday helped the plight of the Iranian …

Posted in News | Tagged and | 12 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Shadow Fleet

Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers is now believed to be over 1,000-strong. The ships are 20-25 years old. Putin has neither the time nor the money to build all the ships he needs.

And he needs a lot because a major slice of Russia’s oil exports are seaborne. International oil sales provide 20 percent of the government’s revenues and the government is spending 40-60 percent of its revenues on the Ukraine War.

The floating rust buckets in the shadow fleet are uninsurable and an environmental disaster waiting to happen. But Putin doesn’t care about their seaworthiness. They are cheap to buy and run and thus make the big profits he needs to feed his war machine.

Stop the Shadow Fleet and you seriously damage the Russian war effort.

Trump has shown the way – possibly. Those are words that have never before appeared in this blog and are unlikely to ever appear again. But as far as dealing with the growing sanctions-busting shadow fleet of oil tankers goes, the US president could be the trend setter.

In recent weeks, Donald Trump has ordered the boarding of seven oil tankers; arrested the crew; sailed the ships to a safe port; impounded the vessels and their cargo and announced plans to sell both.

It was a bold move and the legal framework for Trump’s moves is—to say the least—dicey. The procedure goes something like this—the US tracks a vessel with satellites; monitors its signals; checks to see if it is manipulating its Automatic Identification System (which is illegal); watches to see if it is transferring oil to other ships (also illegal); is uninsured or operating under a false flag (both illegal).

If it is doing anything likely to contravene the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)  then it can be deemed a suspect “stateless vessel.” As such it can be boarded. Its cargo, registration papers, insurance documents can be checked along with the ship’s seaworthiness. If it is found wanting in any of the above then it is confirmed as “stateless.” The crew is arrested. The ship sailed to a safe port and the vessel and cargo are impounded.

The Royal Navy would love to follow suit. So would the French and the Scandinavians. The French have already detained one shadow fleet tanker in the Mediterranean (the Grinch) and the Royal Navy participated in the detention of a ship in the North Atlantic (the Marinera).

But it is in the Baltic and the English Channel where the shadow fleet is most vulnerable. A large proportion of the Russia’s tanker-borne oil is loaded at Primorsk or Ust-loga and sails through the Baltic, the Danish Straits and then the North Sea and the English Channel on their way to Asia via the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal.

That first leg is largely British and Scandinavian territorial waters where local navies could easily board the shadow fleet tankers.

Posted in Op-eds | 7 Comments

ALDC by-election report, 26th February

This week, there was one principal council by-election down on the South Coast. With national attention staring north at the parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton, it offered a straightforward snapshot of how voters are moving locally.

In Southampton, we were defending the seat and held on in a close finish, staying just ahead of Labour. While the margin tightened, the seat stayed in our hands. The Greens made a clear step forward and Reform UK registered a noticeable first outing, yet neither was enough to shift the overall picture. Congratulations are due to Councillor Chris Shank and the local Liberal Democrat team for ensuring this seat remained ours.

Southampton City Council, Shirley
Liberal Democrats (Chris Shank): 975 (27.3%, –11.9)
Labour: 954 (26.7%, +2.7)
Reform UK: 681 (19.0%, new)
Green Party: 539 (15.1%, +12.0)
Conservative: 288 (8.1%, –13.7)
Independent: 122 (3.4%, new)
TUSC: 16 (0.4%, –0.8)

Liberal Democrats HOLD

Turnout: 35%

Thank you to all of our candidates, agents, and campaign teams. A full summary of these results, and all other principal council by-elections, can be found on the ALDC by-elections page here.

Posted in News | Tagged | 1 Comment

Lib Dem takeaways from Gorton and Denton

It would be very churlish not to congratulate Hannah Spencer and the Greens this morning. It’s a good feeling to win a by-election. Having another young, progressive woman in Parliament is so much better a result than it could have been.

The Greens did pretty much our playbook and took a seat that, in other times, we would have grabbed and we have to ask ourselves whether the strategy that allowed that to happen is one that we wish to continue.

The result was:

Green Party – 14,980 40.7%.            +28%
Reform UK – 10,578  28.7%               +15%
Labour Party – 9,364  25.4%               -25%
Conservative Party – 706 1.9%.            -6%
Liberal Democrats – 653 1.8%              -2%
Monster Raving Loony Party – 159
Advance UK – 154
Rejoin EU Party – 98
Libertarian Party – 47
Social Democratic Party – 46
Communist League – 29
The total number of votes cast was 36,814, with a voter turnout of 47.62%.

First up, this is a total and utter failure by Reform. This is the third by-election they were supposed to walk but lost after Hamilton and Caerphilly. They threw the entire contents of the luxury kitchen at it. And of course they are doing the Trump thing by complaining it was “sectarian” and stolen from them by illegal “family voting.”  Their blatant racism is unsurprising.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 71 Comments

The Chagos Agreement will secure the Chagossians’ right of return. The Liberal Democrats must support it.

The agreement between Britain and Mauritius over control of the Chagos Islands has become one of the most controversial topics of this Parliament. This is a sorry reflection on the state of UK politics. In more normal times, the Chagos deal would be viewed as a diplomatic success story – an example of two states working together to uphold the rules-based international order for the benefit of all concerned.

But these are not normal times. Ever since the government of Liz Truss announced in November 2022 (with the backing of the Biden administration) that it was opening negotiations with Mauritius, critics have scoffed at the idea of “surrendering” the islands to a foreign power. In recent weeks, the accusations of treachery have reached a fever pitch – stoked in no small part by Donald Trump and his friends on the hard right of UK politics.

The Liberal Democrats have a critical role to play in ensuring that the Chagos agreement goes through. The legislation needed to implement the treaty, the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, is currently in its final stage of the legislative process. Having cleared its third reading in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, all that remains is for MPs and peers to iron out the final text of the legislation so that it can receive royal assent.

In the Lords, however, the Labour Party cannot do things alone. It depends upon the cooperation of others. The purpose of this blog post is to ask the Liberal Democrats to offer such cooperation at this all-important juncture.

I have studied the Chagos Islands for 18 years. From my perspective, the rights of the indigenous Chagossians have always been the most important dimension of the Chagos dispute. Having lobbied many of your elected representatives and peers over the past two decades, I know that the Liberal Democrats feel the same way. Why, then, do I support the Anglo-Mauritian agreement when so many Chagossians seem to oppose it?

The key thing to remember is that the Chagossian community is divided on the issue of sovereignty. This should not be surprising given that the Chagossians and their descendants number in the thousands and are spread across several countries. They have conflicting interests, identities, and ideas about their homeland – just like any other large group of people.

Posted in The Independent View | Tagged | 1 Comment

Drugs, Crime and Common Sense

For four years I worked in His Majesty’s Prison Service. Most of my time was spent with two groups: vulnerable prisoners, often those convicted of sexual offences who couldn’t safely be located on normal wings, and men struggling with addiction. What I learned there shaped my view on drugs more than any political argument ever could.

The truth is uncomfortable. If you are born with a tough set of circumstances, poverty, unstable housing, parents battling substance misuse, you are statistically far more likely to face those same issues yourself. The data backs this up. Around 46% of people in prison report having used drugs in the month before custody. Nearly two-thirds report regular alcohol use before entering prison. A significant proportion have experienced childhood trauma, been in care, or grown up in chaotic households. This isn’t coincidence. It’s a pipeline.

County lines has made it worse. The National Crime Agency estimates that thousands of children are exploited each year in drug distribution networks. These are not criminal masterminds. Many are 14, 15, 16-year-olds groomed by older gang members, often threatened or coerced. Research shows that some county lines “runners” earn less than minimum wage once debts and exploitation are factored in. Yet they risk prison or death.

I remember one young man vividly. He was 18 years old. No stable family. No strong guidance. He had been on remand in the adult prison where I worked. I asked him how his court case had gone. He told me quietly: “I got life.” He had stabbed someone over a bicycle — a situation rooted in drug-related conflict. Two young lives destroyed. Two families shattered. And the state left to deal with the aftermath for decades.

We cannot police our way out of this.

The UK spends billions each year on drug enforcement, policing, courts and imprisonment. Yet drug-related deaths in England and Wales are at record levels, over 4,900 in the most recent annual figures. That is the highest rate since records began. Meanwhile, our prisons are overcrowded, and reoffending rates remain stubbornly high — around 25% overall, and much higher for short sentences.

Other countries have tried something different. Portugal decriminalised personal possession of all drugs in 2001. Drug use did not explode. Instead, drug-related deaths and HIV transmission fell sharply. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reports that Portugal’s drug mortality rate remains significantly below the European average. Crucially, drug use became a public health issue rather than purely a criminal one.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 15 Comments

Scottish Liberal Democrats call for measures to tackle medical misogyny

Scottish Lib Dem Women, the official Lib Dem organisation representing women, took a motion to Scottish Conference at the weekend which called on the Scottish Government to improve women’s health care.

Medical misogyny refers to the gender bias or discrimination women can experience when accessing healthcare.

Instances of medical misogyny include the dismissal of pain as “normal”, a lack of research into women’s healthcare and a general lack of understanding among many GPs.

Medical misogyny can lead to longer waiting times for gynaecological care, which have increased by more than 250% over the last seven years in Scotland.

The motion called on the Scottish Government to:

  • Launch a public awareness campaign for both medical professionals and the wider public to remove the stigma faced by women seeking help for their reproductive health.
    Improve access to diagnosis, end dismissal of symptoms and the normalisation of pain faced by women.
  • Tackle postcode lotteries of care by enhancing understanding of conditions, including but not limited to, endometriosis, the menopause, polycystic ovary syndrome, hyperemesis and ectopic pregnancies.
  • Embed a better understanding within the NHS of the effects of reproductive health conditions on period poverty, women’s mental health and women in the workplace.
  • Vastly reduce waiting times for referrals and then treatment, especially in gynaecology and urology.
  • Improve training and standards across NHS services in Scotland.
  • Increase research into reproductive health over a women’s life course, moving away from the belief that this is a ‘niche’ area.

The motion is part of the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ broader strategy to tackle misogyny and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).

The debate was emotional, thoughtful and powerful as women shared their sometimes awful experiences in accessing healthcare.

You can watch it here.

Christine Jardine said:

There are too many women who have effectively been told to put up and shut up when accessing healthcare.

There is an insidious and entrenched prejudice around women’s pain, and the cost can be devastating. It can lead to conditions being undiagnosed, to misdiagnosis and, ultimately, to an eroding confidence amongst women about the point of reporting symptoms at all.

The SNP have only added fuel to the fire: by mismanaging our NHS over two decades, they have made it much tougher to deliver the care that women need.

Progress on the women’s health plan has been slow; ministers need to step up and get on with making plans a reality.

Women deserve a system that they can trust and depend on. To build that system, we should be moving heaven and earth to increase awareness and understanding of women’s healthcare, ramp up training and research, and end the damaging waits for diagnosis and treatment.

Kirsten Herbst-Taylor from Dumfries and Galloway proposed an amendment calling for annual gynaecological screening for women. She has been living with Stage 4 Ovarian Cancer and she told Conference:

When I was diagnosed during a routine check-up at my local GP surgery, the disease was already advanced. I underwent extensive surgery and six rounds of chemotherapy.

I am here today because of the extraordinary skills of the surgical team at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh — Dr Pete Sanderson and Professor Stephen Wigmore — and because of the expertise and steady care of my oncologist, Dr Rachel Nirsimloo.

We are incredibly fortunate to have such dedication and excellence within NHS Scotland. I am deeply grateful for the treatment I have received.

But gratitude for treatment must sit alongside urgency about prevention.

In Scotland, around 600 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every year. It is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. Across the UK, fewer than half of women are diagnosed at an early stage.

Stage at diagnosis changes everything.

When ovarian cancer is detected at Stage I, around 95 percent of women survive five years or more. At Stage IV, that figure falls to around 15 percent.

That is not a marginal difference. It is the difference between life expectancy measured in decades and life expectancy measured in years.

We have national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer. We do not have one for ovarian cancer. Instead, we rely on women recognising vague symptoms and primary care identifying a rare disease early enough to alter outcomes.

That is not a systematic early detection strategy.

I am asking this conference to support the establishment of a national screening programme for ovarian and other gynaecological cancers, and to give women the entitlement to an annual gynaecological check-up, including ultrasound where clinically appropriate.

Even at Stage 4, there is hope. Treatment advances mean many women now live for years with good quality of life. But earlier diagnosis reduces the need for aggressive treatment and dramatically improves survival.

With survival at around 95 percent when ovarian cancer is detected early, and only around 15 percent at the most advanced stage, the evidence is clear: early detection saves lives. A national screening programme and annual gynaecological checks are not optional — they are necessary.

Let’s make this a reality.

Central Scotland candidate Lucy Smith told of her experience of endless visits to the doctor with abdominal pain and being dismissed. After too long, she was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease. Lucy’s experience was almost identical to that of someone I love very much and it is infuriating that both of those young women had to experience years of hell.

Beatrice Wishart MSP talked about the importance of training future doctors in these issues – asking how many women had been fitted with IUDs without pain relief, being told they would experience only slight discomfort.

Jacquie Bell spoke very movingly of her traumatic birth experience and how the refusal of her doctor to consider home birth meant that her child never had any siblings.

While my own childbirth was not nearly as traumatic, I told the Conference how I basically ran away and hid for a few hours after a male obstetrician told a midwife without reference to me to just break my waters and get on with it. I also added that every time I went to the doctor after I turned 40, no matter what with, it was put down to the menopause. And now I come to think of it, that might be why it took 3 months to get my Glandular Fever diagnosis back in 2009.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , , , , , and | 1 Comment

From broadsheet to outrage factory: the decline of the Spectator and the Telegraph

Liberals should care about the collapse of serious conservative journalism. Not because the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph were ever friends to progressive politics (they weren’t), but because a functioning liberal democracy depends on a press that engages honestly with reality across the political spectrum. What has replaced these publications’ particular brand of reactionary journalism is something considerably worse: reactionary journalism stripped of any pretence to intellectual seriousness. And that is bad for everyone.

Let us be clear about what these publications actually were. The Spectator spent much of the twentieth century providing intellectual cover for policies that entrenched inequality and treated the interests of the powerful as synonymous with the national interest. The Telegraph was the unabashed voice of privilege: the paper of the officer class, the Home Counties, the quietly certain that things were arranged more or less as they ought to be. To mourn their decline is not to pretend they were ever on the right side of history. It is simply to note that the seeds of today’s dysfunction were present in the editorial culture all along: a culture that prioritised tribal comfort over truth, and consistently failed to hold power to account when that power wore a blue rosette.

The lurch, and what drove it

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , and | 10 Comments

Government bows to Lib Dem pressure on Andrew files

The Government agreed to a Lib Dem motion to release the files relating to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a trade envoy back in 2001.

The commitment came during a Lib Dem opposition debate yesterday. The debate obviously couldn’t focus on any of the legal issues surrounding anyone at the moment, but MPs from most parties took the opportunity to raise their concerns. It’s good that the victims and the disgusting misogynist culture came in for criticism, but will this lead to meaningful change?

Here are some of the highlights of the debate.

It is highly unusual to hear the Royal Family spoken about in less than deferential terms in Parliament, and Ed referenced this in his speech and apologised for his own previous glowing appraisal of Andrew:

I encountered this at first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an Adjournment debate on behalf of Lord Green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The debate was led by the late Paul Flynn, but even he—an ardent and outspoken republican, as I am sure many of us remember, was not allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself. Paul called it “negative privilege”, and that is what it was. He said his mouth was “bandaged by archaic rules”, and that had very real and damaging consequences. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues. In that debate, Epstein’s name was not mentioned once, and there was no chance to debate the substance. Standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the Government’s position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the prince’s role as trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I am horrified by it. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like that, as they did so often all around the world, so I apologise to them, and I am determined to change things.

Minister Chris Bryant, never a fan of the Lib Dems, had a go at him later in the debate despite him being upfront about it.

Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.

Ed replied:

The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.

Monica Harding described an encounter with Andrew where he’d had a go at Dolly the Sheep:

Andrew came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep. At the time, it was the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. One of my team was a young Japanese woman who worked for the British Government as a member of British Council staff. Her job—we paid her—was to promote the UK. She showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. “Dolly the sheep,” he sneered, “It’s rubbish. Frankenstein sheep”. My team member was deflated and did not understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of.

Wendy Chamberlain made a vary pertinent point on the use of language:

Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?

Tessa Munt pushed the Government to increase transparency measures:

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , and | 1 Comment

Lib Dems to lead debate on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on Opposition Day

It’s a Liberal Democrat Opposition Day in Parliament today and we have chosen to devote half of it to asking for an investigation on how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was ever appointed a Trade Envoy and for the Government to publish all the papers relating to his appointment at the time. The motion says:

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that

Posted in News | Tagged , and | 10 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tim Leunig
    I agree with David Evans and Ed Davey. Whether or not the UK government charges £300 or some other token sum (remember, the plane will fly out empty so the cos...
  • Mick Taylor
    Why another referendum? We are a parliamentary democracy where decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people. Parliament should determine the ...
  • Rodrigo Palmer
    So what I mean by practical limits is that Jevons’ Paradox applies. Greater rates of material throughput generally involve greater work done in the economy. T...
  • Rodrigo Palmer
    @Simon, the problem is that since 1960, our position within physical systems has changed. Energy Returned on Investment (EROI) for oil was much higher in the 19...
  • Joan Summers
    Concerning to see that 5 by-elections result in one net gain each for Reform and Conservatives, with Reform averaging 31% on the night....