World Book Day! What are you reading?

It’s World Book Day today! Children all over the country are heading to school dressed up as their favourite book character. My 12 month old great niece even went to nursery in a Very Hungry Caterpillar costume.

Unfortunately, MPs don’t dress up, but some have marked the occasion. Here’s Christine Jardine on books at lunchtime in her office:

I’m not sure why Tom Gordon is reading Brave New World when he could just watch the news. He said on Twitter:

Happy World Book Day. I’m currently reading Brave New World for the first time. There’s probably a joke here about the state of the world and reading a dystopian novel.

Adam Dance, aware of the impact of Dyslexia, wrote to the Education Secretary to ask for more action to help pupils with the condition:

A very sobering thought from a bookshop owner I know who said that the free World Book Day books given to children are often, for children on free school meals, the first book they have ever owned. I loved reading as a child, I always had my nose in a book. It took me out of my own head and made me imagine. Reading is so enjoyable and really helps you learn and develop as a person and it’s so sad that reading for pleasure is on the wane.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment
Advert

A non-wonk’s guide to liberalism

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

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

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

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

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 13 Comments

So long Skype: the demise of a once disruptive technology

I haven’t used Skype in years, and nor have many of my contemporaries, and it was only reading a reference to it by a Lib Dem peer in a debate that I remembered it still existed, but in the wake of Microsoft’s announcement that it will soon be discontinued, it’s worth remembering what the world of international telecommunications was like before it.

Having lived and travelled abroad in the 1990s, I remember when international calls were a thing, and an expensive one at that, either entailing buying phone cards or frantically feeding coins into a payphone just to get someone call you back. Indeed, it reflected the era Skype was born in that a Guardian headline referred to how it ‘disrupted the landline industry’, and while it did become available on smartphones, it still conjures up images of clunky old desktop computers.

Skype is what is known as Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, and while it was not the first such service, it was certainly the most user-friendly, and inexpensive, as it only required you to download a piece of free software, create an account with a user name and password, and you were free to call anyone else who had done the same. By contrast, other VoIP services required you to buy expensive bits of hardware, and even if you were willing to, how many of your friends and family were?

Its founders, Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, were no strangers to disruptive technology, having been behind the file-sharing app Kazaa, before it faced multiple lawsuits from record companies and film studios over copyright infringement. However, while creative industries could arouse public sympathy, given the cultural resonance of music and film, the same could not be said for telephone companies, which were, and still are, charging subscribers exorbitant amounts by the minute for voice calls, and were in dire need of disruption by the likes of Skype.

Traditionally, international phone calls were only possible because telecom operators in different countries had agreed to interconnect with each other, or rather, governments, because they were often state owned, and extensions of the post office. In addition, those operators were usually a monopoly, and if they weren’t, other operators were subject to licensing and regulation.

But Skype changed that; it mattered naught what country you were in, as long as you had a decent internet connection, you could use it, although some telecom operators did their best to block or throttle it. In addition, you were not completely cut off from the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) as you could buy credit to make outbound calls to regular phone numbers, and receive inbound calls on a regular phone number in the country of your choice.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 3 Comments

WATCH: Ed on Pod Save the UK

Ed Davey appeared on the most recent episode of Pod Dave the UK, talking to Coco Khan.

Watch his 13 minute interview here.

Posted in News | Tagged , and | 1 Comment

WATCH: Ed calls for Andrew and Tristan Tate to be extradited to UK

Today at PMQs, Ed Davey asked Keir Starmer to request the extradition of Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan to face trial.  Watch here.

Posted in News | Tagged , , and | Leave a comment

Europe must federalise to survive in a Trumpian world

The continent must unite to survive without America’s support. Federalism is the way.

The Europe we know and love is under threat. For President Trump, ‘America First’ means everyone else last, allies included. In a dizzying flurry of official announcements and offhand remarks, the man in the White House has undermined Europe’s economies, security, and ultimately, its very existence.

By threatening to withdraw military support for Ukraine, Trump has signalled America will no longer be the world’s policeman and protect Europe. The continent needs to stand on its own two feet. But it’s stumbling. Soon-to-be German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hit the right notes when he said “my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” but there’s no plan to achieve it. When Trump asked Starmer if the UK could “take on Russia” by itself in an otherwise chummy meeting, he was met with an awkward laugh.

Without American support, Europe faces existential threats in a hostile world. We are simply not in control of our destiny. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it requires getting real about where our strength lies – together. A federal Europe, where both sovereignty and identity are shared between supranational, national, and local levels would give us the power to make our voices heard. Such a system works in America, dividing politics and culture between federal, state and county levels, and, on a smaller scale, in Germany. We are stronger united.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 16 Comments

What would being on a war footing look like?

How would Britons react if the country was placed on a war footing? My question is provoked by a letter from a certain Freya Hartley in this Sunday’s Observer. Her two short paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

“I feel strongly that our government should be bold and forward thinking and put itself and the country on the equivalent of a war footing. It needs to push through fast a raft of measures to improve our self-sufficiency, especially in food, energy, and defence. As we did in the Second World War.

They need to hold cross-party brainstormings, initiate a blitz of public information to get the whole country engaged and involved. Act fast. This could bring the country together. We left Europe and the US has left us, we are alone and we need to come together, work together. Good could come out of all this horror”.

Posted in News | Tagged and | 13 Comments

Trump, Zelensky and the White Paper of our time

Embed from Getty Images

The images from the Oval Office were grotesque. Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on his ability to “make deals,” sat across from a beleaguered Volodymyr Zelensky and did what can only be described as political hazing. Instead of offering assurances of support, Trump harangued and hounded the Ukrainian president, all while dangling an exploitative mineral deal before him — one that offers no security guarantees, only the faint scent of transactionalism masquerading as diplomacy.

It was a moment that should chill anyone with a passing knowledge of history. Because what we witnessed wasn’t just another Trumpian tantrum; it was the re-run of an old, dark playbook. The optics of Trump cosying up to Putin’s interests at Ukraine’s expense are hauntingly reminiscent of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin, with all his paranoid cunning, believed that Hitler’s outstretched hand was one of good faith — or at least mutual self-interest. He was wrong. Hitler, never one to honour a deal longer than it served him, turned on the Soviet Union with all the fury of a betrayed beast. The lesson? Dictators do not negotiate in good faith, and deals with devils have expiry dates written in invisible ink.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 18 Comments

Pay Attention Britain!

    It’s only been a little over a month since Donald Trump’s return to power and already the world feels a lot less safe; our future a lot less secure.

    His governing style is bluster, bullying, bribery and blackmail. Sidelining Congress in favour of executive fiat, dismantling the US federal structures that threatens the reversal of 80 years of US foreign policy and world order.

    Even our right-wing media are rattled.

    On Wednesday, the Telegraph editorial (while stating the bleeding obvious) read – Sir Keir Starmer will need to tread carefully today as he sets out to gain Washington’s support in several key policy areas. The Prime Minister cannot be seen to overly concede to Donald Trump, but he also cannot risk angering the leader of the world’s largest economy at a time when Britain is on the brink of recession.

    Yesterday, The Mail on Sunday’s headline proclaims (with uncustomary frankness) – Now Stop the State Visit for Bully Trump!

    Sadly, once again our government wrong-steps in its response to a crisis.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 18 Comments

Starmer is living in a dreamworld. Britain must choose between Europe and Trump’s America

What a difference a day makes. On Thursday, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to Washington DC to meet with President Donald Trump. There, in the White House, Starmer had a jovial and good-spirited meeting and press conference with the new US President. The press hailed the Prime Minister’s visit as a triumph referring to it as a “love-in” and a “bromance”. It appeared to vindicate Starmer’s strategy of walking a delicate diplomatic tightrope between Europe and the new American administration.

But then came Friday. President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s wartime leader, who is viewed by many to be a modern Churchill, sat in the same seat in the Oval Office as Starmer had done. However, Zelensky’s meeting with Trump could not have represented a greater contrast to that of Starmer’s a day earlier. There, Zelensky was subjected to berating and bullying from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Trump and Vance brought absolute shame on to the Office of the Presidency by goading and bullying Zelensky. All of which played into the hands of Vladimir Putin and his fascist attempt to conquer Ukraine.

Starmer’s dream day in the Oval Office has quickly turned into a living nightmare. Trump’s treatment of Zelensky reveals an uncomfortable truth. That in this increasingly divided and polarised world, Britain cannot continue to walk a diplomatic tightrope between Europe and Trump’s America. Britain will have to decide who it stands with. Do we stand with most other European democracies in defending what remains of the liberal rules-based order, or do we stand with Trump in forging a harsh world of realism, authoritarianism and post-truth politics?

In the EU, the likely next German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for greater European independence from America. There are even serious considerations about the creation of a common European army, especially as Trump’s America is no longer seen as a reliable NATO partner. Britain, along with the rest of Europe, must free itself from its dependency on America, especially on matters of defence. We Europeans must stand on our own two feet. We must embrace being the leaders of the free world, a position that Trump vacated on Friday when he sided with Putin against Zelensky. 

There are significant risks for Britain in choosing to side with Trump over Europe. A cutthroat trade deal with Trump’s America that forced us to reduce our trading standards and economic regulations would be bad for our economy. It would also kill any hopes of getting a stronger trading relationship with the EU. Britain should not allow Trump to bully us into accepting an unfavourable trade deal through the threat of increased tariffs. The Trump Administration has also taken aim at Britain’s attempts to combat hate speech and discrimination. To reduce such protections would only embolden the far-right even further. In short, if we side with Trump, then Britain risks being reduced to a vassal state of Trump’s America.

However, it is far from certain that Starmer will take Britain closer to Europe. Take for example, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, rebutting the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Ed Davey has rightly called for Britain to join a customs union with the EU. Yet, even this proposal, one that would bring clear economic benefits, has not been supported by Labour. The fact that Labour cannot support even the most reasonable and modest proposals for strengthening our relationship with Europe is a cause for concern.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , and | 18 Comments

Peace abroad, peace at home: Addressing the Liberal Democrats’ Achilles’ heels 

On Friday, the Starmer Government witnessed its first departure on principle as Anneliese Dodds, the Minister for International Development, resigned. With Keir Starmer having announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product  by 2027, Dodds criticised the corresponding cut in international development from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%, saying that it would ‘remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation’.

Starmer has said that there is ‘no driver of migration and poverty like conflict’ and Dodds gave him the benefit of the doubt by stating that he was not ‘ideologically opposed’ to international development. Nevertheless, Labour have broken a manifesto pledge. On page 125 of their 2024 manifesto Change, they pledged to increase the UK’s international development budget to 0.7% of GDP, reversing a cut made by the Conservatives. Reducing Britain’s soft power capacity will likely instigate rather than quell conflict.

As this episode coincides with Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that his new spending decisions are driven by pandering rather than prudence. Increasing national defence spending would be a sound means of endearing the UK to Donald Trump who has lambasted NATO allies for not spending enough in this regard, and a sound insurance policy considering his scepticism of the alliance and his wide-eyed admiration for strongman authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin.

However, the converse decrease in international development spending is a blatant attempt by Starmer to ingratiate himself with Trump by aping his administration’s actions. The Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk in their questionable quest to cut $2 trillion worth of federal spending – or 15% of the total US budget – have endeavoured to shut down the US Agency for International Development. Even the temporary funding freezes, overturned through court challenges, have disturbed vital support for programmes combatting diseases including tuberculosis and HIV.

Unfortunately, Labour is also likely playing to a domestic audience. Reform UK have topped several recent opinion polls albeit in the twenties alongside Labour and the Conservatives. By being generally ‘anti’ and actively playing up their position as an opposition party, Reform is drawing in aggrieved supporters  from both major parties. With the Damoclean threat of Reform winning an outright Commons majority in 2029 with even fewer votes than they did in 2024, Labour have decided that following their populist lead is the best course of action.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 4 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

Germany

Europe’s largest economy and largest population has lurched to the right. Friedrich Merz is on the conservative wing of the right of centre Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The Social Democratic Party (SPD) has been relegated to the number three slot for the first in post-war German history. But, more importantly, the far-right Alternativ fur Deutschland (AFD) is now firmly entrenched in the number two position.

Electoral success such as that enjoyed by the AfD in last weekend’s federal elections would normally ensure a place in a coalition government. Not in Germany, the mainstream parties have agreed to a firewall between themselves and the AfD that prohibits political cooperation between themselves and the AfD.

It was this firewall that was recently attacked as “undemocratic” by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.

But then America does not have the burden of a Nazi past which many Germans fear the AfD threatens to resurrect. It favours remigration which many interpret as a mass deportation of immigrants. It is Euro-sceptic; anti-LGBTQ; pro-Russian; opposes sending military aid to Ukraine and is ambivalent about Germany’s Nazi past. Germany’s Committee for the Protection of the Constitution has designated the AfD as an “extremist right-wing” organisation which means it is being closely monitored by the police and security services.

But the AfD garnered 20.8 percent of the vote—double what it won in the previous federal election. The party—or at least its policies—cannot be disregarded, especially its position on immigration.

The traditional German mainstream parties—CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD and Greens—have tended to deal with the immigration issue by ignoring it. In the case of the CDU, Angela Merkel went further and declared that Germany had a moral responsibility to help refugees and in 2015 admitted more than a million and laid the foundations of a backlash.

The new soon-to-be Chancellor Merz is determined to win back AfD supporters by stealing some of their clothes and introducing tough anti-immigrant legislation.

The difficulty is that the AfD has positioned itself as the only party willing to talk about immigration and propose radical action to tackle the perceived problem. If Merz and the CDU position themselves in this space, they risk being perceived as a less authentic version of the AfD. Voters are convinced that the AfD cares passionately about limiting immigration. They may be less convinced that it is a genuine priority of the CDU.

United Kingdom

The famed British Welfare State is threatened by the American withdrawal from Europe and the resultant increase in defense spending.

In fact, social spending belts across Europe will need to tighten as money is poured into missiles, drones, tanks and howitzer shells to protect Western Europe from the Russian bear.

This week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, announced that he was cutting overseas aid from 0.5 percent to 0.3 percent to pay for an increase in defense spending from 2.3 to 2.5 percent by 2027 and three percent by the end of the decade.

The cuts in aid will put $15 billion in the British exchequer which is enough to fund the increased spending up to 2.5 percent but not enough to go all the way to three percent. And, the fact is, that three percent is unlikely to be enough. American officials are talking about five percent across Europe if they want to keep Donald Trump happy and in NATO. And if the US abandons Europe as feared than defense costs will be much, much higher.

Britain, devotes 25 percent of GDP on welfare spending and another 10 percent of GDP on the NHS. Other European countries spend between 25 percent and 30 percent on social welfare. Funding structures for health services varies.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 6 Comments

Observations of an Expat: A British Knight in King Donald’s Court

The British Foreign Office set a low bar for Sir Keir Starmer’s trip to America—Don’t fall out with King Donald. He succeeded.

That is not to say that substantive issues were not discussed. They were and included:

Tariffs – and the possibility, nay probability,  of reviving the Johnson era US-UK trade deal that could exempt Britain from the crippling tariffs that Trump has threatened to impose on the EU.

The Chagos Islands – Trump is inclined to go along with the British position.

And Ukraine – On this top of the agenda item Sir Keir failed. Trump was immovable – No backstop. No security guarantees and total confidence in the honesty of fellow dissembler Vladimir Putin.

The tete a tete started with a cringe-making pantomime when in front of the world’s media the prime minister reached into his suit pocket and drew out a letter from King Charles III.

It was the expected invitation to Trump to make an historic second state visit to Buckingham Palace.

Royal Family fan Donald evinced childlike surprise and delight at the expected letter and the friendly tone was set for the private talks in the Oval Office. The first box was ticked.

An Anglo-American trade deal has long been one of Trump’s priorities. Not because of any love for the royal family or the homeland of his mother. No, Donald Trump wants a trade deal with Britain because he hates the EU. It is a threat to American trade hegemony. Trump wants to encourage its break-up and insure that Britain does not return to the European fold by pulling it closer to America.

In any upcoming trade talks the British public will be focused on chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and higher prices for NHS drugs. The attention of Trump’s negotiators will be on coordinating regulations across a wide-range of goods and services to make it more difficult for Britain to negotiate re-entry into the European single market and/or customs union.

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

The End

February 28, 2025 may well go down in history as the day that the Western Alliance ended and the world was suddenly thrown into an unknown future by a White House bully and his initialled sidekick.

The undynamic duo’s treatment of the president of a country which has sacrificed thousands upon thousands of lives in the cause of the protection of the West shamed the United States and countries who have been in alliance with America.

“Say thank you. Say thank you,” shouted J.D. Vance when he should have been thanking Zelensky for the ultimate sacrifices his countrymen and women have made.

“You are not showing any respect,” said Donald Trump, sounding more like a mafia don then the leader of the Free World. It was draft dodger Trump who should have been respecting wartime leader Zelensky who has—against all odds—held out against the Russian war machine for three years.

Several times Zelensky tried to say thank you and explain his position, but each time he was shouted down by Vance and/or Trump.

At one point Trump pursed his lips shook his head back and forth and repeated in a childishly petulant mocking voice: “I don’t want a ceasefire. I don’t want a ceasefire.”

Again, Zelensky tried to explain that he wants an end to the war but that any ceasefire must come with security guarantees because Putin has broken every ceasefire, treaty and agreement that Ukraine has negotiated with the Russian dictator.

Zelensky flew to Washington to sign a deal which would hand over a major chunk of his country’s mineral rights. Trump said the rare earths that American companies would mine was compensation for the aid that America has given Ukraine. Zelensky agreed to that but also wanted assurances that included in the deal would be future security guarantees. A deal which gave away billions worth of mineral rights in perpetuity without protecting Ukrainian territorial integrity was worthless.

But Trump and Vance were determined to secure the rights and at the same time withdraw American support and bully Zelensky into effectively surrendering to Russia. And it was done before a television audience of billions in what appeared to be an attempt to humiliate the Ukrainian leader. The result was possibly the most disgraceful scene in diplomatic history.

European leaders, Democrats and officials from the first Trump administration seemed to regard it as just that.

John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Adviser, said on X: “Trump and Vance have declared themselves to be on Russia’s side in the Russo-Ukraine war, This is a catastrophic mistake for America’s national security. And let’s be clear: Trump and Vance now personally own that policy. It is not the view of a majority of Americans of either or no political party.”

>H.R. McMaster another former national security advisor in the first Trump administration, said it is  “impossible to understand” why Trump and Vance “seem determined to put more pressure on President Zelensky while they seem to be coddling Putin—the person who inflicted this terrible war in Ukraine.”

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a post on X said the “outrageous display” from Trump and Vance was “disgraceful” and “downright un-American.”

French president Emmanuel Macron said: “We should respect those who have been fighting since the beginning,”

“Ukraine, you’ll never walk alone,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said via X. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “Ukraine, Spain stands with you.” Friedrich Merz, the likely incoming German leader, also said he stands with Zelensky before adding that the “aggressor and victim in this terrible war” must never be confused. Top diplomats for the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland issued similar messages of support for Kyiv and the Ukrainian president.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised Zelensky for his “dignity” and said the bloc will continue working with him “for a just and lasting peace.”

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said: “Estonia’s support for Ukraine remains unwavering. It is time for Europe to step up. We do not need to wait for something else to happen; Europe has enough resources, including Russia’s frozen assets, to enable Ukraine to continue fighting,”

The diplomatic meltdown at the White House comes as European leaders—including Zelensky—are preparing to meet in London on Sunday to discuss their next moves in the Ukrainian imbroglio. Host Sir Keir Starmer sees Britain as bridge between Europe and America. The problem is that Trump and Vance appear to be intent on burning that bridge.

Here is the transcript of Trump, Zelensky, and Vance’s contentious exchange. It has been edited for length and clarity.

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

Ed: This is thuggery from Trump and Vance

Well. There’s a danger to thinking that Donald Trump can’t get any worse. He will inevitably disappoint you by sinking even lower.

Tonight’s row with Zelensky in the Oval Office was a case in point. It was always going to be a set-up for the brave Ukrainian leader but I don’t think any of us had quite anticipated the appalling scenes we saw. How he managed to handle himself with such calmness and dignity in the face of that barrage is beyond me.

One of many lowlights from Trump was him saying that he couldn’t condemn Putin because he couldn’t slag him off and then bring him in to a deal. But it was fine for him to call Zelensky a dictator? A fact he seemed to have forgotten when pressed on it yesterday by the BBC’s political editor Chris Mason.

It seems very much like it’s Trump and Putin vs Europe now. Who would have thought that we would need to increase defence spending to defend ourselves FROM the US.

I grew up during the Cold War. I was born after those 13 days in 1962 when everyone was terrified that the Cuban Missile Crisis would bring about a nuclear war. While there was a sort of perpetual anxiety, it was at least relatively stable. There was nothing as unpredictable as a US President who can be nice as pie one minute and as nasty as you can get the next.

Donald Trump has been in office for 39 days and so far it’s been much, much worse than I had feared. I hadn’t had “Mar – a – Lago on Gaza” and while we knew he was going to throw Zelensky under the bus, I don’t think anyone expected tonight’s scenes.

While I know that Keir Starmer is doing his best, I felt like there weren’t enough vomit emojis in the world last night to describe the camaraderie in the White House. It was just really uncomfortable. And the contrast with tonight is still making my blood run a bit cold.

Ed Davey has been quick to show support for Zelensky. He said:

This is thuggery from Trump and Vance, plain and simple. They are bullying the brave true patriot Zelensky into accepting a deal which effectively hands victory to Russia. Unless the UK and Europe step up, we are facing a betrayal of Ukraine.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , and | 19 Comments

ALDC By-election report, 27th February

We celebrated 2 principal council by-election wins this week. Thank you to everyone who stood and campaigned for us. We enjoyed some fantastic results.

In East Suffolk DC we held Woodbridge ward with a spectacular 25% increase in our share of the vote. Congratulations to Cllr Ruth Leach and everyone who supported the campaign. It is our best vote share increase of the year so far.

East Suffolk DC, Woodbridge
Liberal Democrats (Ruth Leach): 1023 (53.6%, +25.4%)
Conservative: 391 (20.5%, +1%)
Reform: 274 (14.4%, new)
Labour: 219 (11.5%, -8.4%)

In Westmoreland and Furness Council we held Eamont and Shap ward – also increasing our vote share and securing a whopping 67% of the vote. Congratulations to Cllr Nicki Vecqueray and the local team on such a comprehensive victory.

Westmorland and Furness, Eamont and Shap
Liberal Democrats (Nicki Vecqueray): 789 (67.2%, +1.5%)
Conservative: 241 (20.5%, -13.8%)
PCF: 76 (6.5%, new)
Green Party: 68 (5.8%, new)

Posted in News | Tagged | 1 Comment

Procurement: The beast in the room

I was very interested in the recent article on NHS procurement. As a small business owner I have had multiple dealing with state procurement systems in all their awful grandeur over the years. They may seem dull but in a wholesale reformation of them lies a method of unlocking a massively more efficient and productive state.

UK procurement rules were originally set up to align with EU Directives and with the laudable objective of providing a level platform for competitive tendering for major projects. However intention and execution rarely coincide with regard to British bureaucracy and, while European governments seem to be able to use procedures as they were designed, as they understand and work to the underlying principles, the UK and Scotland used the creation of an extra ‘process’ to:

  1. Set up a bureaucracy of procurement independent of any real control. Like most bureaucracies this validates itself by indefinite and uncontrolled expansion into areas where it is remarkably ill suited (in Scotland the main procurement body is technically under the control of all 32 Scottish local authorities which means it is de facto under no control at all)
  2. Validates its own success.
  3. Instead of simplifying process creates a giddying layer of documentation, gold plating and multiple entering. This of course requires an ever expanding bureaucracy to administer.
  4. Massively expands requirements on interested suppliers by requiring a morass of irrelevant certifications and documentation. This essentially excludes small and medium sized businesses and instead of expanding the potential number of suppliers slashes them.
  5. Since procurement process is deliberately disconnected from the purpose for which it is intended, every project is simply compressed into one ‘standard’ form without any regard for its suitability. Since those who construct the forms have minimal understanding of what they are trying to do they often enshrine economic lunacy in their construction. Since the process is all and its validation is by endless repetition then innovation is completely discouraged.
  6. The result of this is that those who do tender build in an ‘idiocy’ premium to cover themselves against the obvious incomprehension of the process. Both this and the relatively small number of suppliers who work their way through results not in price competitiveness but substantially enhanced pricing.

In an even more Kafkaesque development procurement bodies will often respond to such criticisms by inviting winners of tenders to help refine their procurement processes! Funnily enough those winner then tend to win repeat tenders!

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 2 Comments

Ed Davey: Why I Care – and why care matters

Ed Davey has been writing a book entitled Why I Care: And Why Care Matters, which has been taken up by the publisher HarperCollins. Note that this is a holding cover …

The Bookseller has an article about it, although it is incorrect in stating that it is Ed’s debut – in 2001 he wrote Making MP’s Work for Our Money: Reforming Parliament’s Role in Budget Scrutiny, and he has contributed to several other volumes.

The Bookseller give us a quote from the Editorial director for HarperNorth Jonathan de Peyer:

Ed’s story, which he has so bravely made a key element of his party’s campaigning on the issue of social care, touched millions during the general election. But there’s so much of it we don’t know, and so much about Ed’s efforts to support and empower carers, and to reform the sector, that deserves wider attention. This book is a real passion project for all involved and will galvanise public debate about an issue that touches almost all of us.

The book will be published in May and you can pre-order it here.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment

Don’t close public libraries

The closure threat to public libraries across Scotland has highlighted a major flaw in the funding of local authorities. Chronic underfunding over the last 14 years, has resulted in a year-on-year hunt around budget time to find services to cuts.

No where is this better illustrated than in the situation around public libraries, that have been seen as soft targets, and those servicing rural and coastal communities are seen as fair game for savings. In urban areas where there may be several library branches within a city or large town it is an issue, but in the rural and coastal towns the nearest library may be several miles away. In cities the nearest branch that may be a bus ride away, in the rural and coastal areas that bus ride may be hours and on limited timetables.

When a library is closed in a rural or coastal locations it is lost forever.

At a business debate on public libraries in Holyrood on the 5th of February, one contribution by an MSP who had been a local councillor stood out. He noted that when he became a councillor he was subjected to several presentations around funding and budgets.

To quote from the transcript of the meeting; ‘the first week we were there, the chief executive took us all to the side, all us councillors and we had presentation after presentation after presentation that told me they had no money I had to cut budgets there was nothing I could do, and it was all frontline services.

A shocking indictment on how local government operates, and how democratically elected councillors are being treated.

Libraries are the last free, safe civic spaces available to communities. They are havens for those who are seeking to learn and better themselves. Public libraries need to be protected.

Libraries should be seen as an asset to local authorities and not just a cost centre.

In the past, when economic pressures such as the depression of the 1930’s and post WWII period, governments invested in public libraries as a means of sparking regeneration.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 8 Comments

Government needs to fund plan for ME, CFS and Long Covid patients #fundtheplan

The government is about to release their new NHS plan ‘rethinking ME’ but absurdly it’s not actually coming with any funds attached to it, despite the fact there is now irrefutable evidence of its biological existence and the rapidly increasing number of patients, due to the number of Covid long sufferers who meet the diagnostic criteria. Many patients have been let down for decades over the lack of funding, not to mention being treated awfully over the years by the medical community.

The funding for ME/CFS/Long Covid patients is about £40 per patient per annum, one of the lowest of any disease despite the most severe patients having a very quality of life compared to patients with several other illnesses.

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

What the Lib Dems can offer on rail

Ask any Brit about their last positive experience on a train – and chances are they will do one of two things: laugh in your face or wax lyrical about one of Spain, the Netherlands, France or Italy.

Despite Britain introducing rail to the world, 200 years ago to this year in fact, the system is creaking – and stories are becoming more horrifying. Overcrowded trains, jaw-dropping ticket prices and endless complaints about on-board wi-fi justifiably fill social media and newspaper articles. After decades of neglect and mismanagement, the UK’s railway network needs more than a fresh lick of paint – it needs a complete rethink. With the government on the cusp of launching their plans to the industry we have the perfect opportunity to propose some liberal ideas to fundamentally improve the offering for passengers.

The new government’s plans are bold and have more cross-party support than one might imagine. Plans to create ‘Great British Railways’ (a singular body to run both rail services and infrastructure) have near universal support. The government will, and perhaps at the time of reading, have already, put forward proposals to unite track and train into one body – citing fragmentation as the reason for the poorly run state of our railways. Broadly, they are spot on: too many chefs occupy the kitchen, leading to a poor quality broth.

Whilst the ‘broad principles,’ as one senior rail figure described to me, are agreed upon – the devil will truly be in the detail – our party needs to ensure good policy outweighs rigid ideology.

For the first time since the mid 1990s, all aspects of the railway – save the leasing of the trains, freight operations and a few other constituent parts – will hinge entirely on government money. In a tight fiscal environment, this should worry anyone who uses the train.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 13 Comments

Balancing compassion with care: Rethinking assisted dying, disability, and palliative services

I have long believed that every individual with a terminal illness should have the autonomy to choose a dignified end to their suffering. I have supported assisted dying, convinced that compassionate legislation can relieve unbearable pain. Recent debates have reignited a conversation that is both deeply personal and political.

My conviction comes from enduring ideals and painful personal experience. In the final week of my mother’s life, I witnessed the physical and emotional anguish of terminal illness. Although her suffering was brief, those days were marked by excruciating pain. Had she had the option of assisted dying, she might have chosen a more controlled, peaceful departure. I remain grateful her pain was short-lived, yet I cannot help but think of those who suffer for far longer.

However, I harbour serious reservations about the current legislative approach. While Kim Leadbeater’s bill recognises individual choice, it risks overshadowing the urgent need for improved palliative care within our NHS. I have been influenced by concerns raised by disability campaigners, including Mary Regnier-Wilson’s tweets. She argues that the bill erodes trust in our healthcare system by pressurising vulnerable individuals into seeing assisted dying as their only escape from a failing support structure.

This perspective underscores a broader fear: that legalising assisted dying without addressing systemic issues will normalise a shortcut in end-of-life care instead of prompting the necessary investment in comprehensive support. Our palliative services remain under-resourced, with funding and staffing shortages and outdated facilities leading to substandard care. The bill’s narrow focus risks diverting attention from these critical reforms.

Critics contend that legalising assisted dying may offer a temporary escape for those in unbearable pain, but it does little to tackle broader healthcare inequalities. In a society where many already suffer from inadequate care, introducing assisted dying without first strengthening essential services feels nonsensical. As one poignant question asks, “what’s the point of living well, if we are unable to help those people die well too?”

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 12 Comments

New book out today: When we speak of freedom – Radical liberalism in an age of crisis

When all we see before us is a dystopian hellscape with populists everywhere and everything we have ever valued (or taken for granted) about living in a liberal democracy where human rights are valued has suddenly turned on its head, we need a way of sorting things out.

A book published today, edited by our friend and regular contributor Paul Hindley and Ben Wood, seeks to provide some of the answers. When we speak of Freedom: Radical Liberalism in an age of crisis is published by Beecroft Publications in association with the …

Posted in News | Tagged , , and | 3 Comments

3 New Lib Dem MPs to speak at the Social Liberal Forum pre-conference lunch in Harrogate

The Spring Lib Dem conference in Harrogate starts at 4.30pm on the Friday 21st March. Before that at midday we in the Social Liberal Forum (SLF) are organising a pre-conference lunch event at the Crowne Plaza hotel near the conference centre. 

Last year the spring conference was in York and we organised a similar lunch time event with 3 prospective Lib Dem MPs as speakers; Josh Babarinde, Victoria Collins and Bobby Dean, all of whom got elected last July. This year we invite back Bobby Dean with 2 more new MPs; local MP Tom Gordon and Pippa Heylings who is our spokesperson for energy security and net zero.

They will talk about their personal journey from deciding to join the party to becoming candidates and winning their seats. They will discuss the challenges ahead and how MPs representing the prosperous “Blue Wall” seats may be able to work to benefit people living in the deprived communities in the “Red Wall” seats. They will also share their vision of what it means to be a Lib Dem MP.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | Leave a comment

Mark Pack’s February Report: Looking forward to Harrogate

Federal Conference is nearly here

It is fabulous we are not only returning to Harrogate for a Liberal Democrat conference, but that now it is also a venue with a Liberal Democrat MP, following Tom Gordon’s win last July.

The very first winning general election campaign I worked on was that for Phil Willis, also in Harrogate, back in 1997. Back then, we all thought the 1997 election result across the country was a cracking one for our party, winning 46 seats. But we far surpassed that in 2024. People will still smile while saying ‘72’ for a good while yet.

But elections keep on coming, and we have a great opportunity with the May local elections – or rather, the reduced number of them after Labour and the Conservatives decided that democracy is inconvenient when changes are coming to local government.

Even with the reduction in elections, they are still a great opportunity to strengthen our position in the constituencies we won last year, and a great opportunity to build up our strength more broadly too.

For all the damage done to local government by years of cuts and centralisation, billions of pounds in public services will be at stake in the May elections as local government is still at the heart of so many crucial services.

Which makes these elections important not only for our future growth as a party, but also for our immediate power to turn our policies into action to improve people’s lives.

Policies that we will be updating and refreshing at our Federal Conference for the new political landscape we are in. Alongside that we will have the opportunity to discuss lessons from the general election, along with excellent training, a variety of fringes and stalls and much catching up with colleagues from around the country.

Whether by coming in person, or joining online, I hope you join other members by taking part in our Harrogate Conference.

The Agenda and Directory are up on the party website, as is the Federal Board report to Conference, which is in the Reports to Conference booklet.

That Board report includes explanations of the two items of business the Board is proposing in addition to our report: updates to our election regulations, primarily in response to the recommendations of the review carried out by Nick Manners, and a very short constitutional amendment regarding Liberal Democrats Ltd.

Party strategy

Harrogate Conference will also include a consultation session as part of evolving our strategy for the new circumstances of this Westminster Parliamentary cycle. The Board has produced a short note to help give that session some context, which you can read via the party website. If you are not able to make the session, you can also send in comments via president@libdems.org.uk.

Harrogate will also see a presentation from the General Election Review, another important input into our plans for this cycle. The report is available to read here.

Measuring success

If there were media outlets as keen to talk up the Liberal Democrats as some are to talk up Reform, then we would be hearing a lot about how Lib Dem support has surged to increase by half. That is because so far in this Parliament, we are averaging 12% in the polls, compared with 8% for the same period in the last Parliament.

While the increase may cause us quiet satisfaction, and the absence of media coverage for it quiet frustration, the most important point about the increase is that it shows one of our key assumptions for the 2024 general election playing out. That is, that national vote share is – in the current set of circumstances – a consequence of success rather than a cause of success.

In other words, we managed a history-breaking seat haul alongside a small increase in our vote share because, under first past the post, national vote share is only very weakly correlated with success for a party like ours. Hence 2024 (72 seats) was a triumph while 1983 (23 seats) was not, even though the Alliance’s vote share in 1983 was just over double ours in 2024.

Remembering to focus on winning under the political system in front of us served us well in the last Westminster Parliamentary cycle, and it will do so again in this.

Internal election news

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 1 Comment

Ed Davey: Britain must lead on defence AND aid

In an email to Party members, Ed Davey set out his support for the Prime Minister’s plans to raise defence spending – though he urged him to go faster and to get all-party talks going to work out how. However, he criticised the fact that it was being funded from the international aid budget.  The Liberal Democrats have long championed international aid and it was our Michael Moore who successfully enshrined the previous 0.7% target in law back in 2015.

Watch Ed’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday:

Ed said in his email:

Today, the Prime Minister did what we’ve been urging him to do for years: commit to increasing Britain’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

That is essential. With Vladimir Putin waging war on our continent, and Donald Trump in the White House cosying up to him, this is the most perilous moment for Europe in my lifetime.

Trump is threatening not only to betray the brave Ukrainian people, who have heroically resisted Putin’s war machine for the past three years, but also to undermine peace and security across Europe – including here in the UK.

In the face of that threat, the UK must step up and lead in Europe – and that has to include a big boost to defence spending. Today I urged the Prime Minister to go even further and bring all parties together to get to 3% of GDP as soon as possible.

But while we agree with the Government on the urgent need to spend more on defence, we have a clear difference of opinion on how to fund it. We have set out a clear plan to raise that money by increasing the Digital Services Tax on the profits of social media firms and other tech giants.

But Labour – along with the Conservatives and Reform – say it should instead be paid for by cutting international development spending. That is a big mistake.

The Conservatives already cut back on international aid when they were in power, and that did enormous damage to the UK’s soft power around the world. Deeper cuts now – at the same time as Donald Trump and Elon Musk are gutting America’s aid programmes – will only leave a vacuum for Russia and China to fill, strengthening the hand of authoritarian regimes and further undermining our security.

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

The NHS Procurement Maze: Why SMEs are being shut out of public sector contracts

I never thought I would end up writing an article about NHS procurement—which, on the face of it, sounds like a terribly dry subject. But having recently navigated the system on behalf of an SME, I have seen first hand how its failings contribute to waste, inefficiency, and the exclusion of innovative and agile suppliers.

Due to a conflict of interest and confidentiality concerns, I am posting this anonymously to avoid disadvantageing my client in an ongoing tender.

The SME I work with has decades of experience supplying medical equipment to international governments, NGOs, and global health organisations; in the past 12 months we’ve delivered over 150 tonnes of medical kit to various humanitarian organisations internationally. Yet despite successfully delivering to healthcare systems worldwide, they remain locked out of the UK market due to the NHS’s absurd, Kafkaesque procurement process. It is easier for UK companies to sell to the United Nations than the NHS.

Reforming NHS procurement won’t make for a catchy campaign leaflet. A Focus Leaflet titled “Better NHS Procurement” would likely be left unread by most voters, nor do I imagine the next Lib Dem Battle bus to be emblazoned with “Making NHS Procurement Fairer” (almost as bad as Stronger Economy, Fairer Society).

But if we are serious about NHS reform, we cannot afford to focus only on treatment and waiting times. Procurement is the foundation of how NHS services are resourced and delivered. If the system is flawed, patient care suffers.

The rationale for NHS Procurement’s complexity—and why it still fails SMEs

Some argue that NHS procurement’s complexity is necessary to ensure quality, compliance, and supply chain security. And after the PPE scandals of the Covid period, that is understandable. However, the system confuses necessary oversight with unnecessary red tape, creating a bureaucratic obstacle course that disproportionately disadvantages SMEs, and actually costs the NHS more. 

A bureaucratic obstacle course

SMEs entering the NHS procurement system face an administrative onslaught. Instead of a streamlined, user-friendly platform, they encounter excessive duplication of compliance paperwork—the same details must be submitted across multiple forms rather than being stored centrally for easy reference.

Ironically, the NHS has centralised its procurement but still requires suppliers to manually provide the same information in different places, often in slightly different formats. This isn’t just duplication—it’s decuplification (doing everything times 10).

Take, for example, Information Security. Despite not handling patient data, the SME had to justify compliance with 200+ security questions and create 20+ new policies to meet NHS data standards for patient data collection.

Even financial and insurance compliance becomes an exercise in bureaucracy. The same insurance documents had to be uploaded in four different places, simply because different sections of the tender required them separately. This highlights a fundamental flaw in NHS procurement: centralisation has not simplified the process—it has only increased the volume of paperwork.

NHS Supply Chain also mandates significant discounts from suppliers without providing any volume guarantees, meaning SMEs risk making a loss unless the NHS orders enough products to break even. Additionally, all delivery charges must be included in the quoted price—meaning that for low-cost items like a 50p scalpel handle, an SME must absorb shipping costs until orders reach a viable quantity.

SMEs are required to provide extensive documentation on social value contributions, despite having fewer resources than large corporations. The level of evidence required (impact assessments, reports, case studies) can be an additional bureaucratic burden, rather than a proportionate measure of social value.

While sustainability goals are important, SMEs are expected to provide carbon reduction plans at the same level as large multinational corporations, without proportional adjustments. 

The process forces SMEs to adhere to reporting standards that are disproportionately burdensome for smaller suppliers. While large corporations have entire sustainability teams dedicated to completing these reports, SMEs are expected to meet the same extensive standards, despite having significantly fewer resources.

The framework contract structure places heavy financial burdens on suppliers. SMEs must commit to pricing for extended periods, yet payment terms and ordering patterns remain uncertain. The NHS often takes months to pay invoices, creating cash flow problems for suppliers.

Despite the NHS’s stated commitment to SME participation, the tender process does not offer streamlined or proportional requirements tailored for smaller businesses. SMEs must navigate the same extensive documentation, cybersecurity, and compliance hurdles as multi-billion-pound corporations.

Suppliers must repeatedly submit the same financial and product data across different spreadsheets and compliance portals, with no guarantees of orders to justify long-term framework pricing.

This echoes Kafka’s The Trial, where the protagonist is forced to defend himself against an opaque legal system without clear justification for the charges against him—a perfect parallel to the NHS procurement process.

The hidden cost of excluding SMEs

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

24 February 2025 – today’s press releases

  • DIY heating: More than nine in ten Scots using alternatives to central heating this winter
  • Cole-Hamilton: UK must stand strong against Putin three years on from illegal invasion
  • Labour should ditch plans for health “superboards”
  • Crown Estate Bill – Labour treating Wales with contempt

DIY heating: More than nine in ten Scots using alternatives to central heating this winter

  • Scots who are worried about the cost of heating have changed how they heat their homes this winter to help cut bills.
  • Scottish Liberal Democrats are calling for an emergency home insulation programme to help those in fuel poverty.

A shocking new poll commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that 66% of Scots say they are worried about the cost of heating their home this winter, as they reveal the alternative methods they are using to keep warm this winter.

The poll reveals that a staggering 96% of Scots who are worried about the cost of heating their home this winter have made changes to how they heat their homes.

Of those, 46% have lowered the thermostat temperature and almost a third (29%) have reduced the number of rooms being heated.

To keep warm this winter, 66% of Scots have worn additional clothing, 56% have used more blankets and throws and 38% have been drinking more hot beverages.

Worryingly, 5% of those who are worried about heating costs have revealed they have visited a warm bank this winter. Warm banks are free, safe spaces where people can go to warm up if they can’t afford to heat their homes.

Around 34% of all households in Scotland are estimated to be fuel poor. The energy price cap is set to rise by 5% in April, increasing average annual household bills to £1,823 from April this year.

Liberal Democrat Scottish affairs spokesperson Christine Jardine MP said:

Both the Scottish and UK governments are failing to support Scots with heating their homes during the difficult winter months.

After the UK Labour Government axed universal winter fuel payments, vulnerable pensioners were left to choose between heating and eating. Meanwhile, on the SNP’s watch, fuel poverty has soared to record levels and it could take ministers 100 years to heat eligible homes.

My party has been working hard to try and unpick some of that damage, and after our talks with the Scottish Government, we’ve ensured that all pensioners in Scotland will receive help with their heating bills next winter.

Ministers still have a lot more to do, which is why we want to see the Scottish Government rolling out a nationwide insulation programme. That’s how we can meet the scale of the challenge and provide a win-win of cutting emissions and energy bills.

Cole-Hamilton: UK must stand strong against Putin three years on from illegal invasion

Speaking three years on from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP has said that the UK must stand strong against Putin and boost support for Ukraine by seizing frozen Russian assets, working in close step with Europe and increasing defence spending.

Posted in News, Press releases, Scotland and Wales | Tagged , , , , , , and | 3 Comments

I’ve seen assisted dying first-hand – and it speaks to the heart of our shared Liberal Democrat values

My mother died last year. She was an amazing woman, as an academic, a mother, a mountaineer and much more. But her breast cancer had metastasised to her stomach and abdomen, killing her. But because she lived in New South Wales, Australia, she could choose Voluntary Assisted Dying, and was able to control how, when, and where she would die. That mattered immensely to her, empowering her to end her life with dignity, how she chose.

When I was an MP, I was keen to see the UK pass legislation to enable this in the UK – but the opportunity never arose. I’m delighted that Kim Leadbeater did propose an Assisted Dying Bill, and have been following it closely before and after the key second reading debate. Today’s MPs have this chance once again and I am meeting with Parliamentarians today to argue that they must deliver this long overdue reform.

Assisted dying is an issue of both principle and practice. As a Liberal Democrat, I have always shared commitments to liberty, equality, and human rights. These values are the foundation of my conviction on this issue. Allowing people to make their own decisions at the end of life is both the liberal and the Liberal thing to do. I was so pleased and proud to see that, in line with these values, the vast majority of Liberal Democrat MPs (85%) supported this Bill at Second Reading, especially given our manifesto commitment to making time for a full and fair debate. But as ever, it is the combination of the personal and the political that makes my support for law change so urgent.

My mother, Professor Felicia Huppert, was a pioneering psychologist with academic expertise and interest in well-being and peace of mind in healthcare settings and beyond. Her work covered everything from aging and dementia to positive psychology and wellbeing – one of her last articles was entitled, appropriately “Compassion at the heart of well-being”. She was also a liberal – a founder member of the SDP. Her books – especially on ‘Creating the world we want to live in’ and ‘The Science of Wellbeing’ could be essential reading for anyone – liberal or otherwise, who wants to think about how to empower people to make their lives better.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 5 Comments

Third Anniversary of the Invasion of Ukraine: There Are No Easy Options Left

Bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory.

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy

Three years ago the Russian invasion of Ukraine became too loud for Europe and the world to ignore. The truth that those same countries could not admit before then, is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine had actually started in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and the start of the Donbass War. Far from fighting for their independence for three years, Ukrainians have actually been fighting for over 10 years.

What prevented Ukraine’s now allies, and the US, from recognising what …

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

Recent Comments

  • Joe Bourke
    Jenny, completely agree we should spend our defence money in Europe and develop our own ballistic missiles ideally in cooperation with France as with Airbus....
  • expats
    When Russian media proclaim that "The USA and Russia are now partners" you know that you are a long way "down the rabbit hole".. However, Trump is completely...
  • Rob Parsons
    Simn R 4.23pm I think the conflation is almost ineviable in my approach. The Liberal Democrats are today's and here's application of the harm principle. On t...
  • Andy Chandler
    @Rob Parsons Regarding your piece and document; I think your guide is a very good handbook guide on Liberalism. I think I would agree that it should be seen as...
  • Simon R
    Rob, I think your guide is worthy attempt to explain liberalism in plain speech. The first section on the basis of liberalism seems spot on. After that, to my m...