Liberal Democrat Voice

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

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

Advert

Mathew on Monday: why compromise is not a dirty word – lessons from Rob Jetten, D66, and Dutch politics

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 2nd February 2026 - 4:30 pm

British politics has developed a curious allergy to compromise. To concede ground is framed as weakness. To negotiate is to betray. To meet an opponent halfway is, we are told, to have no convictions at all. And yet, across the North Sea, one of Europe’s most successful democracies quietly carries on proving the opposite.

In the Netherlands, compromise is not a failure of politics. It is politics.

At the heart of that tradition sits Democrats 66 (D66), the liberal, pro-European party founded on the belief that democracy works best when it is open, plural, and willing to adapt. Under the leadership of Rob Jetten, D66 has remained unapologetically progressive while also engaging seriously with the hard, sometimes uncomfortable business of coalition-building.

The Netherlands’ latest government formation, which ended days ago with a minority government of D66, the the centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), and the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) – complex, drawn-out, and occasionally messy – has once again prompted familiar complaints from British commentators. Too many parties. Too much negotiation. Too much horse-trading. Surely, they say, this proves proportional representation leads to paralysis.

In reality, it proves something else entirely. Proportional representation reflects society as it is, not as a voting system wishes it to be. The Netherlands is plural, diverse, and ideologically varied – and its Parliament mirrors that reality. No single party gets to impose its will unchecked. Power must be shared, priorities must be argued through, and outcomes must command a broader consent than the wafer-thin mandates so often produced by Britain’s first-past-the-post system.

That is not democratic weakness. It is democratic maturity.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged church of england, defence policy, dutch politics, greens and lessons of coalition | 1 Comment

Advert

Christine Jardine: With Jim Wallace’s death, it feels like we have lost part of our conscience

By NewsHound | Mon 2nd February 2026 - 2:45 pm

In her Scotsman column this week, Christine Jardine has made many of us in Scotland cry. She wrote about Jim Wallace, about meeting him as a young reporter and then as a fellow parliamentarian.

I first met Jim Wallace in 1992 when I was a journalist with no political allegiance, and he had just become Scottish Liberal Democrat leader. I remember telling my husband and colleagues that he seemed like a decent bloke, and in some ways too ‘nice’ for politics.

That came back to me on Thursday when I learned of his death. Because in truth, that first impression was the one that stuck with me through the 30 years during which he influenced and shaped my personal and political direction, and the country’s.

It never felt like an overt, interfering influence. More like a favourite wise uncle whose opinion you would seek and whose approval you cherished. He was someone you felt was motivated by doing the right thing, not for political gain or to win votes, but to be fair and just.

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged christine jardine, jim wallace and the scotsman | Leave a comment

Deep poverty rises again: Lib Dems have the policies to fix it

By Katharine Pindar | Mon 2nd February 2026 - 12:43 pm

The new annual report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK Poverty 2026, makes disturbing reading. Poverty was suffered by 21% of the population in 2023-4, more than 14 million people: the rate of 20-22% had been steady throughout the previous decade. The average person in poverty had an income 29% below the poverty line of 60% of average income. But in its latest measurement, in 2023-4, the JRF found that 6.8 million people, almost half of those living in poverty, were in very deep poverty, with an average income an appalling 59% below the poverty line. This is the highest proportion of the population suffering very deep poverty on record, says JRF. They report that, around 3.8 million people experienced actual destitution in 2022, including around a million children. These figures have more than doubled since 2017.

‘The basic state of benefits continues to be around the threshold for destitution’ states the report.

How has this chronic state of so many of our citizens come to this, and what is the Government doing about it? JRF explain that before the pandemic benefits were being cut, deepening poverty. Then a decade of weak growth in real incomes was succeeded by the pandemic and next the cost of living crisis, driving up the numbers of people lacking essentials and having to rely on emergency charity such as Food Banks (surely no longer considered so much as an emergency as a sadly necessary extra provision today).

The Government’s Child Poverty Strategy is indeed likely to reduce child poverty by 400,000 over the current Parliament. Scrapping the Two Child Limit for benefits, a long-held Liberal Democrat policy, is at the centre of the strategy. Child poverty is indeed a chronic need, but the DWP forecasts that over 4 million children will still be in poverty in 2029-30.

Which are the families most likely to be in very deep poverty? While being in work vastly reduces the likelihood of being in poverty, in-work poverty has been rising. And the JRF states that ‘Economic growth on its own will not reduce poverty.’ Indeed, they point out that growing living standards and falling poverty could be spurs to growth.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged deep poverty, joseph rowntree foundation, poverty and social security | 5 Comments

Ed Davey’s message for LGBT History Month

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 1st February 2026 - 7:40 pm

It’s 1st February today so Ed Davey has written an article on the Lib Dem website in which he highlights this year’s theme, science and innovation and looks at the Lib Dems’ strong record in advancing the cause of LGBT+ rights.

He said:

This LGBT+ History Month we celebrate the contributions of LGBT+ people throughout history, reflect on the struggles they have faced and reaffirm our determination to make progress on equality.

LGBT+ people have always existed. From artists, activists and athletes to scientists, innovators and pioneers, they have helped shape our country and our world, even when their sexuality and stories were erased. This year’s theme, Science and Innovation, highlights the vital contributions LGBT+ people have made to fields from healthcare and engineering to environmental science and technology and reminds us that diverse voices have driven progress for everyone.

From Barbara Burford, a medical researcher who established NHS equality and diversity guidelines to Alan Turing, a mathematician who conceived modern computing and played a crucial part in the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, to Robert Boyle, a founder of modern chemistry and the modern scientific method, history is littered with the contributions of LGBT+ scientists. However, this month also calls for honesty. For too long, science has been misused to pathologise and marginalise LGBT+ identities, causing real harm. Still today, many LGBT+ people face discrimination in healthcare, education, housing and employment, as well as being victims of hate crime and hostility. No one should be made to feel unsafe, invisible or lesser simply because of who they are.

The Liberal Democrats have a proud legacy of leading the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. From repealing Section 28 – the Conservatives’ law which prohibited the “promotion of homosexuality” by local authorities – thanks to a clause moved by Ed Davey, to Lynne Featherstone’s tireless efforts to legalise same-sex marriage, and the former Liberal Democrat MP John Leech securing pardons for those unjustly criminalised for their sexuality, our party has always stood on the right side of history. That same commitment drives us today.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged ed davey and lgbt history month | Leave a comment

Jenni Lang replies to the Toast to the Lassies

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 1st February 2026 - 10:30 am

Yesterday, we brought you Charles Dundas’ Toast to the Lassies from the Edinburgh South Burns Supper.

The reply below comes from Scottish Party Convener Jenni Lang.

She mentions the “Naughty Table” which is a bit of a tradition started by me and a few friends about 15 years ago. We even brought our own sign to show where the most fun was to be had. Jim Wallace was doing the Immortal Memory that year and he started off saying “Ladies, gentleman, and, pretending to look at us disapprovingly, “the Table there.”

Jenni makes a lovely tribute to Jim, the man on all our minds last night. He was exactly the sort of person the world needs in abundance right now.

Enjoy:

Good Evening, and firstly, thank you so much to Charles for his kind words, and thank you to the SELD organisers and Faith for inviting me to make the reply on behalf of the lassies tonight, unexpectedly for the second year in a row! Here’s me thinking I was off the hook and allowed on the naughty table…but no!

It’s been quite the year since I last joined you, and frankly, the world feels significantly more fragile.

You look around at the carnage, at the chaos. And then you look at the global picture and wonder…..what’s missing?

The Women. The women are missing.

Remember the ‘Before Times’? The era of Angela Merkel, the world’s governess, who could stare down a dictator with nothing but a sensible blazer and a look of profound disappointment. She treated the G7 like a difficult parents’ evening.

Or Sanna Marin, a woman who could successfully navigate a Finnish winter, join NATO, and still find time to go to a party without the world ending. She proved that you can run a country with one hand and hold a glow-stick in the other, which is still infinitely more dignified than anything most male leaders do with an X account.

Or Jacinda Ardern, who managed to run a country, raise a child, and show basic human empathy all at the same time.

Since the women have stepped down, it’s like the adult supervision has left the building. We’ve traded ‘steady hands’ for ‘shaky egos,’ and ‘global stability’ for ‘whatever happens when a billionaire gets bored at 3:00 AM.’

Now, for those of you who were here last year, you may remember my fond reflections on the different species of Liberal Men I’ve encountered in the party over the last 25 years. The Liberal Gentlemen, like the wonderful Charles; the Policy Geeks; and the Super-Campaigners who can’t look at a letterbox without feeling an uncontrollable urge to shove a leaflet through it.

But let’s be honest….those are the ‘domesticated’ varieties.

It feels only right that we widen our scope this year to the Alpha Males currently roaming the global stage.

Over the years, I’ve realised that these male world leaders fall into a few distinct archetypes. Much like whisky regions, each has its own distinct aroma, its own fiery finish, and, in most cases, a very high probability of giving you a massive headache the next morning.

So I decided to highlight a few of note……let me know if any sound familiar…..
First, we have the Narcissist Billionaire…..the only man on earth who can look in a mirror and see a victim of radical leftist conspiracy looking back.

He is a man who has never met a ‘Fact’ that couldn’t be improved with a gold-leaf border and a bit of imagination.

This leader operates on the principle that success is measured entirely by the size of your skyscraper, the height of your hair, and the sheer, aggressive boldness of your font.

He runs a country the way he runs a golf course: loudly, expensively, and with the firm belief that ‘par’ is whatever he says it is. To him, ‘cheating’ is just another word for ‘winning,’ and ‘the Truth’ is something that happened to other, less successful people.

He believes diplomacy is best conducted via capital letters on social media, preferably at 3:00 AM, in a fever dream of AI-generated images showing him as a Roman Emperor or a muscle-bound Rambo.

In his world, Facts are optional extras, like the sunroof on a car. Advisors are purely decorative…like the salad that comes with a steak. And if something goes wrong, it is never his fault. It is the fault of the media, the judges, the deep state, or….as we know all too well in Scotland……. windfarms that are ‘killing all the birds’ making us poor, and ruining the view from his 9th hole.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the European Technocrat.

This leader does not ‘rule’…..he administers. He doesn’t have a ‘base’; he has a ‘stakeholder group.’ And he doesn’t give speeches so much as he issues software updates for society.

He believes deeply in three things:

Committees.

Sub-committees to monitor those committees.

And a Bold Vision for 2047, pending consultation.

He will never shout, he will never boast, and he wouldn’t dream of threatening you. Instead, he will ‘express grave concern,’ commission a three-year feasibility study, and ‘harmonise a framework’ until everyone in the room falls asleep.

He has the unique ability to make a declaration of peace sound like instructions for assembling IKEA flatpack furniture. He doesn’t ‘seize power’; he ‘coordinates a multi-level, transitional regulatory alignment.’

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged burns supper, jenni lang and reply to toast to the lassies | Leave a comment

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 1st February 2026 - 8:30 am

Iran

Two weeks ago, Donald Trump messaged the Iranian people and its leadership that the US was “locked and loaded” and ready to come to the aid of the demonstrators.

This week he has despatched a “beautiful armada” to the region. Not to support the demonstrators. No, the objective has changed. He has sent the armada to force a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme.

This obviously means that Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear production facilities failed. At the time he said it was a “total success” that “annihilated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Surprise, surprise, Trump lied.

But more importantly, he is also lying to the people demonstrating on the streets of Tehran and all the other cities in Iran. He led them to believe that the US was on the verge of military intervention in Iran to topple the increasingly unpopular mullahs.

Because of Trump’s words, Iranians continued to flood onto the streets to demonstrate. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for its part, continued to shoot the demonstrators. One human rights organisation estimates that 25,000 Iranians have been killed by the regime since demonstrations began at the start of the year.

Determined demonstrators continue to pour onto the streets. The regime’s soldiers are equally determined to keep the mullahs in power by quelling the riots with bullets and blood.

Using the military to force regime change is wrong, even one as despicable as the Iranian theocracy. It is against international law. But it is immoral to encourage to take to the streets where they are murdered when you have no intention of helping them.

Minnesota

The murder of Alex Pretti has forced Trump to pull back in Minneapolis. He didn’t want to. It was obvious that the president preferred to follow the line of Kristi Noem, Secretary for Homeland Security, in branding the ICU nurse a “domestic terrorist.”

But “domestic terrorist” Pretti most clearly was not. Anyone equipped with a pair of eyes who bothered to watch the video of Pretti’s murder could only reach one conclusion: he was unlawfully killed by ICE agents.

Every murder—especially one by federal agents—is a tragedy and Minneapolis and and the state of Minnesota have suffered an unfair quota of tragedies. It started towards the end of Trump’s first term when George Floyd was killed by the Minneapolis police.

Then last June state representative Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark and their dog Gilbert were shot dead. At about the same time Minnesota state senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette survived another shooting.

With the arrival of 2025, relations in the city appeared to be improving. that 2025 was the first year since the George Floyd murder that the Minneapolis Police Department was able to recruit enough new officers to more than offset losses. Crime rates were significantly down. Relations between the Minneapolis PD and most citizen organizations were improving. The city’s centre-left mayor was re-elected by a good margin, rejecting the far left alternative by a wide margin. Things were calm. Things were calm.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 2 Comments

Evidence beats ideology: What Hampstead Ponds tells us about trans inclusion

By Tanya Park | Sat 31st January 2026 - 3:00 pm

Last Thursday brought two moments that should settle the trans inclusion debate, if we’re willing to listen to evidence. The High Court refused permission for judicial review of Hampstead Heath’s trans-inclusive bathing policy. The same day, the City of London published consultation results showing what 38,445 people actually think about it.

The media focused on the court ruling, spinning it as women being “denied justice.” That’s nonsense. Mrs Justice Lieven simply said Sex Matters used the wrong legal procedure – they need a County Court discrimination claim, not judicial review. Standard civil procedure, not conspiracy.

The real story is what nearly 40,000 people said when asked about their actual experiences.

What the evidence shows

The numbers are overwhelming. 86% agreed the ponds should continue operating as trans-inclusive spaces. Only 13% wanted strictly biological sex-based access.

Among the 84% who had actually swum at the ponds, 81% reported positive experiences, 10% reported negative experiences, and 2% reported mixed experiences. Two-thirds had used the ponds within the previous three months. These are people describing what actually happens, not what they fear might happen.

The consultation tested several “compromise” positions. Every single one was rejected by overwhelming majorities.

Separate changing rooms for trans people: 90% disagreed. Characterised as discrimination and segregation.

Timetabled sessions with designated “trans times”: 90% disagreed. Respondents raised serious concerns about making trans people visible and vulnerable, increasing safety risks.

Mixed-sex facilities open to all: 66% disagreed. Opposition came mainly from people who want to preserve gendered spaces whilst supporting trans inclusion within them. The ladies’ pond as a sanctuary from cisgender men was repeatedly emphasised.

What this means for liberal policy

The findings challenge common assumptions. “Women feel unsafe with trans women present” – not according to 81% of pond users. The real safety concern raised repeatedly was about cisgender men, which is why respondents opposed making the ladies’ pond mixed-sex.

“This is a binary choice between women’s rights and trans rights” – people overwhelmingly reject this framing. They want gendered spaces that include trans people in those spaces.

“Compromise positions balance competing needs” – the consultation tested several. Each failed because they created discrimination, stigma, and practical problems worse than either maintaining or changing the current policy.

Proportionality means assessing whether restrictions achieve legitimate aims with minimum necessary harm. The consultation provides exactly that evidence. When you ask people about actual experiences rather than imagined fears, you get very different answers.

The case for evidence-based rights

A Just Society’s “Human Rights for All” policy demonstrates what evidence-based rights protection looks like: specialist advocacy for those experiencing harassment, accelerated fair legal gender recognition, and independent oversight of systems that affect people’s lives. The full policy is at ajustsociety.uk, but the principle is simple: dignity isn’t divisible, and evidence shows what’s possible when we trust it.

Now Sex Matters faces a choice. They can bring a County Court claim, but they’ll need to demonstrate the City of London’s approach isn’t proportionate when 86% support current arrangements, 81% report positive experiences, and every tested alternative created worse problems.

That’s harder than “the Supreme Court said sex means biological sex, therefore trans women must be excluded.” The law on single-sex services is more nuanced, and the evidence from Hampstead shows why.

What liberalism actually requires

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged legal and trans inclusion | 2 Comments

Artificial intelligence and the Liberal Democrats: a practical opportunity

By Sean Worrell | Sat 31st January 2026 - 12:55 pm

Artificial intelligence is already shaping how organisations analyse information, plan activity, and communicate. For the Liberal Democrats, AI offers a practical way to work more effectively, engage members better, and understand voters more clearly, while remaining aligned with liberal values.

One of the most immediate applications is voting and demographic data. Parties collect large volumes of information through canvassing, surveys, and local engagement. AI can help analyse this data responsibly, identifying trends, emerging concerns, and under-represented voices. Used well, this supports inclusion and improves how policy and messaging reflect real community priorities.

AI also has a role in strengthening the internal functioning of the party at local and regional levels. Local parties and regional structures manage policy development, casework, campaigns, and member engagement, often under time pressure. AI tools can support learning, policy development, and administration by organising research, summarising consultations, assisting with drafting, and maintaining shared knowledge resources.

To address these opportunities and challenges, a proposed AO focused on artificial intelligence is being explored. This AO would act as a central hub to support members at all levels of the party. It would provide a safe and supportive environment for learning, where members can build understanding without fear of being challenged or exposed, while still encouraging thoughtful discussion.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged AI and artificial intelligence | 6 Comments

Observations of an Expat: Middies United

By Tom Arms | Sat 31st January 2026 - 10:34 am

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke common sense. The world is changing. Might is right is replacing the rule of law. It is time for the middle powers to lift their heads out of the sand, look around and start discussing international systems that do not involve holding onto the coattails of greater powers.

Europe, Japan, Britain, Australia and others have enjoyed the American military and economic umbrella for the past 80 years. They have prospered inside a US-protected system but were largely denied the opportunity to shape their nice, warm American-made cocoon and now can’t easily or safely exit it.

Britain, possibly more than any other country, has allowed itself to become a dependency of the United States. The British nuclear deterrent cannot be delivered without US-made Trident missiles. Five Eyes is dominated by America’s National Security Agency. Key defense equipment comes from the US and Britain has supported Washington in almost every post-war military operation (Vietnam is the big exception). Finally, the British and American financial systems are locked together, and each country is the single biggest investor in the other.

It is unrealistic to expect Britain to completely disentangle itself from the United States. It can, however, create options and alternatives to ensure that its own power does not exist only as a derivative of the US.

It can seek greater cooperation with France in developing each other’s nuclear deterrent. This would involve working together on warhead production and storage, command and control procedures, alternative delivery systems and a nuclear doctrine which reflects the needs of both middle powers.

Britain is out of the EU. It is not returning anytime soon. But that does not mean it cannot improve relations with Brussels. Rejoining the single market is probably a step too far but a return to the customs union benefits both sides while keeping options open.

Conventional military independence is also best achieved through coordination with Europe. Ukraine—coupled with Trump’s unwillingness to be involved—is providing an impetus to develop a more independent defense industry. But there is no way that any European country has the economic infrastructure to replace America’s defense industries on their own, but if each were to specialise than the collective result could potentially dwarf the US and strengthen the European arm of NATO.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 2 Comments

ALDC by-election report, 29th January

By Liam Yip | Fri 30th January 2026 - 10:30 pm

There was only one by-election this week. This was caused by the former councillor being sentenced to over 12 months in prison and therefore was disqualified.

In Scotland, the Conservatives couldn’t hold this seat and their first preference votes slipped to sixth place. We secured a commanding victory, with SNP and Reform trailing well behind us. Congratulations are due to Councillor Ben Langmead and the local team for this strong result, ahead of Scottish Parliament elections in May.

East Dunbartonshire Council, Bearsden South
First preferences:
Liberal Democrats (Ben Langmead): 1,744 (38.1%, +14.9)
SNP: 789 (17.2%, –6.2)
Reform UK: 709 (15.5%, new)
Labour: 650 (14.2%, –1.9)
Scottish Greens: 371 (8.1%, +0.9)
Conservative: 283 (6.2%, –17.0)
Scottish Family Party: 35 (0.8%, new)

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative
Elected at Stage 5

Turnout: 42.7%

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.

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged aldc local government by-elections | 8 Comments

Introducing The Jenkinsite Group

By Jack Meredith | Fri 30th January 2026 - 11:47 am

For the longest time, I have regarded myself as a “Jenkinsite”. For many in the Lib Dems, they will understand what that means. For those who aren’t in the party or aren’t as clued up on political history, I’m usually met with the response, “A what?”

For the avoidance of doubt, a Jenkinsite is someone who supports the ideas espoused by Roy Jenkins. They usually consist of:

Multilateralism
Electoral reform
Social democracy
Social libertarianism
Liberal internationalism
Pro-European Integration
Support for a social market economy

Small differences in the extent to which someone believes in each tenet or how they interpret them may occur, as with every political ideology, but that is, for the most part, the meat and potatoes of Jenkinsite politics.

I digress: 13 days ago, I posted on Bluesky about being a Jenkinsite, which led to a conversation with another Liberal Democrat member about creating a Jenkinsite group. While groups like the Social Liberal Forum exist, which could be argued to be very similar in nature, this would be a group for people interested specifically in the Jenkinsite strand of politics, as well as the political history surrounding Roy Jenkins, the SDP and Liberal Party alliance, and, of course, the formation of the Liberal Democrats.

So, that’s what I decided to do. On Friday, 16 January, I created The Jenkinsite Group on Facebook. The brief for the group is simple: a community for Lib Dem members and supporters who wish to a) influence party policy with Jenkinsism, b) discuss and debate political ideas, and c) discuss political history and share our own political journeys and experiences.

As of today, we have 94 members.

It’s a mix of lay Lib Dem members and supporters, councillors, and even a member of the House of Lords!

The invite is open to all Lib Dems who are interested in joining us.

If that’s you, then just click this link.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged jenkinsite group and roy jenkins | Leave a comment

Jim Wallace has died

By Caron Lindsay | Thu 29th January 2026 - 9:28 pm

I know that everyone reading this will be as shocked and sad as I am to hear of the terrible news that Jim Wallace, a giant of this Party, died today. We send our love to his wife Rosie, and his daughters Helen and Clare.

Jim’s death was announced by Alex Cole-Hamilton:

The Scottish Liberal Democrats today announce with great sadness the passing of Jim Wallace, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, former Deputy First Minister of Scotland and a towering figure of modern Scottish liberalism.

Jim Wallace was born in Dumfriesshire and educated at Annan Academy before attending Cambridge and Edinburgh universities. He was called to the bar in 1979, practising mainly in civil law cases, and became a QC in 1997.

Jim was elected to parliament in 1983 as MP for Orkney & Shetland, succeeding Jo Grimond, and held the seat for 18 years, earning a formidable reputation as a diligent constituency champion and a respected voice at Westminster. After becoming leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, he led the party through the Scottish devolution referendum in 1997, having also been a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which created the blueprint for devolution and a Scottish Parliament.

Upon the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Jim was elected as MSP for Orkney and became Deputy First Minister of Scotland, serving in government from 1999 to 2005. He became acting First Minister while Donald Dewar underwent heart surgery in April 2000, after Dewar’s death in October 2000 and again following the resignation of Henry McLeish in 2001.

He also held the roles of Minister for Justice and later Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, playing a central role in the early years of devolution and helping to shape Scotland’s modern political settlement. He also established a world-leading freedom of information regime.

He entered the House of Lords in 2007 as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, where he remained an authoritative and thoughtful contributor on constitutional, legal and Scottish affairs, including serving five years as Advocate General for Scotland.

Jim also served as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from 2021 to 2022.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, who worked for our MSPs in the Scottish Parliament when Jim was leader, said:

Jim Wallace was one of the architects of modern Scotland and one of the finest liberals our party has ever produced.

He believed deeply in devolution as a way to give people better services and more control over their own lives and he lived a life of public service right up until the end.

For me personally, he was a mainstay of support throughout my adult life. Even as he went into hospital for the final time, he was still sending me words of advice and I will always try to live up to the standards he set.

Throughout his career, Jim was widely respected across party lines for his integrity, calm judgement and deep belief in liberal values: fairness, the rule of law and respect for communities, no matter how remote.

Scotland is a better country because of Jim Wallace, and the Liberal Democrats are a better party because of his example.

Alistair Carmichael, Jim’s succsssor as MP for Orkney & Shetland, said:

Jim Wallace gave his adult life to serving the people of the Northern Isles, Scotland and the United Kingdom. His sudden and tragic death leaves a huge gap in public life. For those of us who knew him as a friend and for his family that gap is one that we shall struggle ever to fill.

In the world of politics, having people on whom you can truly depend is a rare and precious thing. For me, Jim was someone who was there through good times and bad and I am bereft at his passing. I shall miss his acute political analysis, his warm and occasionally waspish wit and, most of all, his easy company and friendship. He was never someone for whom I had to present a front.

My thoughts are with his wife Rosie, his daughters Helen and Clare, his mother and his brother Neil who I know are heartbroken at this moment. I hope that they may eventually take some comfort from the knowledge that the man that they loved in their family was loved by so many others too.

Liam McArthur, Jim’s successor as MSP for Orkney, said:

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged featured and jim wallace | 6 Comments

In the great sea of British Politics, the Lib Dems are stuck

By Danny Loveridge | Thu 29th January 2026 - 12:57 pm

On the morning of Friday 5th July 2024 the HMS Lib Dem had never been so full, or so well built. It was in a near perfect position to head out of the harbour; well stocked with policy and a new crew capable of navigating new waters and new challenge.

Its main rival reduced to nothing more than a wreck after nine long years of mutiny after mutiny, and crashing into every obvious rock and hidden iceberg it possibly could. HMS Tory was all but sunk. Sure, HMS Labour eclipsed both in terms of size and grandeur but it hadn’t yet realised that her foundations were rotten. The hull already letting in water.

HMS Reform was still being hastily built out of every reactionary plank of wood it could find. But with a formidable Captain, it wouldn’t be long before it could raise the skull and crossbones and begin pillaging, dividing the populist spoils.

But after a year choppy waters and after over a year at sea the HMS Lib Dem finds itself stuck at sea. Not heading in the right or wrong direction but stuck. The rest of the fleet might be moving in the right or wrong direction, but at least they’re moving.

If the Liberal Democrats are to get moving it needs to find its wind again and the easiest to find is Liberalism. Liberalism has never thrived when it sees the State as the solution to societal and economic problems.

The new aged based social media policy is a prime example of this, it adds layers of bureaucracy and Government intervention that will never be able to keep up with technology. It assumes government is the solution rather than education. Rather than educating children about the risks of social media it encourages young people to educate themselves about VPN’s, loopholes and the Dark Web. It assumes that our educators are ill equipped to tackle these issues. That may well be the case currently, but the solution isn’t more red tape, but more funding for education.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | 21 Comments

Our latest party political broadcast

By Mary Reid | Wed 28th January 2026 - 9:38 pm

This was broadcast earlier this evening, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged party political broadcast | 1 Comment

Orange throwing at the Federal Board? That’s new!

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 28th January 2026 - 4:40 pm

The new Federal Committees took office on 1st January and we always like to know what’s going on in them.

In the internal elections last year, Janey Little was elected, alongside Prue Bray and Hannah Kitching as one of the three directly elected members.

The Board had its first meeting recently and Janey took to Instagram to give us a flavour of what it was like.

I spent 10 years on the Federal Board and its predecessor, the Federal Executive, and not once can I remember any fruit being harmed in the pursuance of our Liberal Democrat values. The orange throwing ice-breaker sounds intriguing and fun, though I’m glad I never had to do it. My hand-eye co-ordination is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I’m just slightly disappointed that there is no video.

Enjoy Janey’s video below.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged federal board, Federal Council, janey little and party organisation | Leave a comment

Why banning social media for under-16s would harm queer young people

By Tara Foster | Wed 28th January 2026 - 3:10 pm

Social media is a problem. It is addictive, it has damaged attention spans, and with the rise of AI bots it is increasingly polluted by content that is fake, manipulative, or actively harmful. These are real issues, and they deserve serious policy responses.

That said, my view on this is simple: a blanket ban on social media for under-16s – especially in the world as it currently exist – is a bad idea. Worse, it risks causing serious harm to one particular group of young people: queer children.

For many queer children, being different in who you are comes with a price that we cannot shake: the quiet but constant cost of standing out in environments that still reward conformity and punish difference. I was one of the lucky ones. I went to secondary school in a fairly affluent part of Eastbourne, and by the end of Year 9 most of the queer and neurodivergent students (a Venn diagram that is practically a circle) had found each other and formed one social group—loosely shepherded by an equally neurodivergent head of music.

However, I know many people, including several friends and, indeed, my partner, who were not so lucky, and being a young queer kid led to social ostracism – and not just at school. Some people in my social circles had their teenage years in the New Labour era, before the axe of austerity led to the end of most council-run Youth centres. However, they have told me that even with the existence of these essential third spaces, they were not places they could go. Queer kids got beaten up. If you were gay or trans then there wasn’t a hope in hell of being accepted by your peers, not that the aftershocks of Section 28 made this any better.

(As an aside, If you want an excellent insight into what it was like to grow up queer in the UK, I’d strongly recommend watching What It Feels Like For A Girl – which is based on the memoir by Paris Lees.)

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged LGBT, social media and social media ban for under 16s | 5 Comments

In response to Dominic Rider: confederation is comfort, federalism is capability

By Jack Meredith | Wed 28th January 2026 - 12:40 pm

Dominic Rider is right about the moment we are in. The transatlantic guarantee is wobbling; Europe is being reminded, again, that dependence is not a strategy. When Washington treats alliances as transactional, Europeans either grow up fast or get pushed around slowly. The Liberal Democrats should say what comes next.

Where I part company with Dominic is on the destination. He argues for “confederation, not a superstate”. That contrast misses the real problem. Europe already exercises power: the single market sets rules, sanctions shape foreign policy, and standards shape economies. The question is not whether Europe will have power; it is whether that power is democratically governed and has clear lines of responsibility.

A confederation keeps the fog. It offers reassurance, but it leaves the constitutional flaw untouched: paralysis. Dominic is right that unanimity lets one government block action. Qualified majority voting helps, but procedure alone will not fix a system designed to avoid clarity. A Europe that wants to act like a strategic player needs institutions built for action, not for reassuring capitals.

Federalism is the democratic solution. A federal United States of Europe is not the abolition of nations; it is the constitutional ordering of shared power. It means voters can see who governs, what they control, and how to change course. That is not a “superstate”. It is power placed under law, limited by a written settlement, and answerable to citizens.

The principle is simple: do together what must be done together; keep the rest close to home. Defence, trade, external borders, major infrastructure, and climate commitments belong at the federal level because they are cross-border by nature. Taxation, welfare, health, education, culture, and constitutional arrangements should remain national, devolved, or local because diversity is a strength. Subsidiarity should not be a slogan; it should be enforceable.

Defence is the acid test. Pooled procurement is valuable, but deterrence cannot rest on voluntary top-ups and ad hoc deals that unravel whenever politics shift. If Europeans want strategic autonomy, they need a single security actor: capability planning that matches threats, industrial scale to reduce duplication, and a chain of command that is democratically accountable. Committees do not deter revisionist powers; credible forces and clear commitments do.

The “superstate” fear is real, but it is misaimed. What people resent is unaccountable decision-making. The EU already has a far-reaching influence, just in a hybrid form where citizens struggle to “throw the rascals out”. Federalism does not add power for fun; it puts existing power under democratic control, clarifies competencies, and makes responsibility legible.

That is also the British opportunity. Public opinion has shifted; more voters now believe Brexit was a mistake. Yet that sentiment will remain politically inert unless someone offers a serious answer to the next question: rejoin to do what? Labour treats Europe as a problem to be managed, not an opportunity to be seized. Conservatives are trapped by their own coalition. The Liberal Democrats have the freedom, and the duty, to lead.

But leading means more than tiptoeing back into yesterday’s Europe. People can smell timidity. They will not rally to “rejoin, but change nothing”. A federal programme is clearer: Britain should return to help build a Europe that can defend itself, compete economically, and uphold liberal values, not just with speeches.

So what should Liberal Democrats argue for? Treaty reform towards a constitutional settlement: an elected European executive accountable to an elected parliament; a senate of states to protect national voice through transparent votes; majority decision-making where collective action is required; and hard subsidiarity so everything not explicitly federal stays closer to the citizen. That is how you make European power democratic.

Continue reading »

Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Tagged europe and international | 12 Comments

Securing the United Kingdom in a changing world: Why Mark Carney was right at Davos.

By Edward Marsh | Wed 28th January 2026 - 11:10 am

In a world still reeling from rapid geopolitical shifts, the question of national security and strategic autonomy has never been more pressing for the United Kingdom. The post-Second World War era of a relatively stable, rules-based international order – underpinned by multilateral institutions, shared norms, and strong Western alliances – is being challenged on multiple fronts. Nowhere was this tension clearer than in Mark Carney’s landmark address at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, where he delivered a stark analysis of the changing global order and what it means for middle powers like the UK.

Carney’s central thesis was that the international system is not merely evolving – it is rupturing. For decades, the UK, alongside its allies, benefited from what was labelled a rules-based order: predictable trade, collective security, open sea-lanes, and multilateral dispute resolution. But that era is increasingly giving way to a world dominated by great power rivalry and economic coercion. According to Carney, we are now in “the midst of a rupture, not a transition” – a point that resonates as global leaders grapple with the reality of a more volatile geopolitical landscape.

This rupture is characterised by powerful states leveraging economic integration as a strategic tool and weapon — using tariffs, supply-chain dependencies, financial infrastructure, and energy ties to bend smaller partners to their aims. Carney warned that continuing to rely on outdated assumptions of mutual benefit is no longer tenable when integration itself can become a source of subordination.

Much of the backdrop to Carney’s analysis is the reality of the international leadership exerted by the United States under President Donald Trump, whose policies have unsettled long-standing diplomatic norms. Trump’s aggressive trade stance – including tariff threats tied to strategic interests such as Greenland – and his readiness to prioritise unilateral action over multilateral cooperation have highlighted the fragility of previous assumptions about Western unity.

While Carney refrained from naming Trump directly in his speech, the subtext was unmistakable: the security environment that the UK has long relied upon – anchored by predictable American leadership – is no longer guaranteed. The UK can no longer take for granted that allies will act within established norms or that economic integration will safeguard its interests.

What this means for the UK and for us as Liberal Democrats

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Tagged canada, donald trump, europe, international and mark carney | 1 Comment

Why does the exodus of Poles from the UK continue?

By Michal Siewniak | Wed 28th January 2026 - 9:39 am

A decision to move, anywhere, is often difficult. Moving to another city, moving house, moving because of better jobs, or simply moving to seek advancement of life opportunities can be exciting and challenging at the same time. There are those, who can and those, due to war and procession, who must flee to safety.

My story, and the story of many Eastern European migrants, who came to Britain after the enlargement of the European Union is no different. We also came for a lot of different reasons. By 2016, the famous “Brexit year”, around 1 million Poles lived and worked in the United Kingdom. Although the migration of Poles to the UK has a long history, due to communism, martial law, and a difficult set of political circumstances between the years 1945 – 1989, such a high number of migrants made a huge impact on Britain, but also on Poland.

In recent months, there have been many reports in a number of media outlets about the exodus of Poles from Britain. It is true; according to the Office for National Statistics, around 25,000 Poles left the UK and returned to Poland.

Over the years, and in particular since Britain voted to leave the EU, the story of Eastern European migrants has not been portrayed in a positive light. It felt at times that we are a problem, not a solution to some of the challenges that the UK economy has been facing for more than a decade now.

So why are so many of my countrymen and women decided to leave these shores and start the process of reintegration and se-settlement back home? The answer is never easy and it has a lot of caveats, however in my opinion there are 3-4 main reasons.

According to the World Bank, in 2005, Poland’s GDP was approximately $306-$310 billion. 20-22 years later, it is likely to reach $1 trillion. The Polish economy grew three times in the last 2 decades. That’s a phenomenal result. Poland was the only European country that avoided recession during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Secondly, and without a doubt, accession to the European Union meant a rapid and steady growth, which was supported by various investments in a number of key regional and national infrastructure projects. Whilst Britain’s economy has stagnated for years now, Poland continues to grow between 3-4% each year. In Britain, we have experienced much higher living costs, less competitive labour market, as well as more strict visa and immigration rules, which also apply to EU nationals. In my opinion, ending of the free movement has proved to be a “political suicide”, which meant to help and reduce the number of migrants arriving to the UK, however the net migration went significantly up.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged brexit, immigration and poland | 1 Comment

What history might teach us about the 2028 US Election

By Samuel Jackson | Tue 27th January 2026 - 5:15 pm

In America, it is conventional political wisdom that the campaign for their next presidential election begins the day after the last one. A recent opinion poll suggests that half of Americans are already considering the far-off 2028 race, although this may be testament to the unpopularity, corruption and chaos of Trump and his second administration.

The 2025 off-year elections in the US were the first opportunity for voters to rebuke Trump with many local and down-ballot elections receiving greater attention and the Democrats making a clean sweep wherever they were held. With a blue wave is anticipated at the 2026 midterms, Republicans have either undertaken gerrymanders or announced their intention not to run again.

From a British and Liberal Democratic perspective, we have welcomed Democratic wins as signs that Americans still support democracy. As the result of the 2028 election will affect UK-US relations – hopefully for the better – and may influence the subsequent UK general election due by 2029, it may be worth looking back at past elections to see how it may play out.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged us presidential elections | 3 Comments

Pilgrimage to Beijing

By Vince Cable | Tue 27th January 2026 - 12:02 pm

When one of the world’s superpowers becomes a totally unpredictable rogue state it makes sense to reduce dependence on it. One way of doing so is to engage more closely with the other superpower: China. That is the basic logic behind Keir Starmer’s visit to China, starting tomorrow, as it was for Canada’s Mark Carney and France’s Emmanuel Macron’s ’recent visits and Germany’s Chancellor Merz next month.

The Starmer visit is particularly significant for two reasons. First, Britain is one of the closest allies of the USA and most dependent on it. Starmer has, hitherto, gone to considerable lengths to avoid offending Trump, infuriating many of his supporters. Second, the UK’s relations with China have been particularly bad ever since Theresa May’s visit in 2018 and are far removed from the optimistic ‘golden era’ of the Coalition period (in which I was directly involved, with several official visits to China).

But the significance should not be exaggerated. Britain, these days, is a ‘middle power’ rather than a great power. British politicians once boasted about Britain being the ‘fifth biggest economy in the world’. The latest IMF and World Bank rankings for GDP (Purchasing Power basis) have the UK as 10th, just behind France and some way behind Brazil and Indonesia. Turkey lurks at 11th. This, together with a continuing struggle against economic stagnation and our divorce from the EU, means that the UK has less clout than in the ‘golden era’. The ruthlessly unsentimental Chinese will adjust their expectations accordingly.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged uk-china relations | 1 Comment

Mathew on Monday: Illiberal Labour and the War on Local Choice

By Mathew Hulbert | Mon 26th January 2026 - 4:30 pm

One of the most important questions in politics is a simple one: do those in power trust people to make decisions for themselves? Not to always decide wisely, not to always choose outcomes that ministers like, but to choose at all.

Increasingly, this Labour government appears to answer that question with a quiet but unmistakable no. Across justice, democracy, local government, policing, and even its own internal party processes, a consistent pattern is emerging: when local choice becomes inconvenient or risky, it is removed. That should worry anyone who cares about liberal democracy.

Let’s start with the justice system. Proposals to curtail the right to a trial by jury in significant categories of cases are often presented as pragmatic reforms, designed to ease backlogs or improve efficiency. But jury trial is not a procedural luxury – it is one of the most profound expressions of public participation in the administration of justice. It embeds the principle that the state does not sit in judgement alone; it must persuade ordinary citizens beyond reasonable doubt.

When that right is narrowed for the sake of administrative convenience, the public is not being protected – it is being excluded.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged accountability, by-election winners, conservative party, democracy and North Cotswolds | 17 Comments

An eventful weekend

By Geoff Reid | Mon 26th January 2026 - 2:23 pm

Perhaps the most dangerous claim Keir Starmer ever made will turn out to be his General Election slogan, arguing that changing the Labour Party made him well qualified for changing the country. This lies behind the paradox of gaining a huge majority and rapidly losing popularity. And behind that lies our clapped out voting system for Westminster elections.

People are in favour of changing the country but the change they want varies hugely. As for changing the Labour Party – is that crucial to how they vote? Do they see it as any of their business? What do they see if they are encouraged to look at Labour internal matters for five minutes? How strong a card was not being Jeremy Corbyn? It was clearly nothing like as strong as not being any of the last four Conservative Prime Ministers.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged internal party democracy and labour party | 2 Comments

Liberator 433 is out!

By Liberator Collective | Mon 26th January 2026 - 12:18 pm

Liberator 433 is out and you can download it for free here:

You can also sign up here to be emailed when each new issues comes out:

What’s in this issue?

The War Down the Road From Ukraine

Combat medic and conflict studies academic Adam McQuire has been taking aid to
some of Ukraine’s most dangerous places but finds doors shut when he tries to warn
the UK government about modern warfare

1,000 Days, and the Blood Can Be Seen From Space.

Sudan is the world’s worst – and most ignored – human rights …

Continue reading »

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Defending Our Future: The Blueprint For The Lib Dems To Modernise and Protect British Democracy

By Tushar Aneja | Mon 26th January 2026 - 10:26 am

As Reform continues to lead the polls, we are witnessing a movement that mirrors Trump’s MAGA movement in the US, unlawfully arresting, detaining, and sometimes deporting non-white residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents. What we’re seeing from this administration is an attempt to ethnically cleanse the country of non-white people. With the clear ties between Farage and MAGA, Reform is not just any political rival. Their ascent to government would initiate a direct assault on British democratic values. It won’t be long before non-white British residents and citizens are targeted in the same way.

A Reform government is existentially dangerous because our democratic institutions and guardrails are uniquely vulnerable to an authoritarian takeover. Whilst the UK prides itself on stability, structural features like FPTP allow an extremist minority to seize absolute power with as little as 30% of the vote. That is fundamentally undemocratic. When you combine that with a House of Lords that lacks democratic legitimacy and an uncodified constitution that relies on the “good chaps” theory of government, our long-standing constitutional crisis fosters a ripe environment for a demagogue to bypass the traditional norms and conventions that hold our democracy together. More precisely, Reform and the Conservatives have already pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the ECHR; the core risk is that a Reform or Reform/Conservative coalition could secure a substantial parliamentary majority with a voteshare below 50%. This simple majority would then be used to push through an authoritarian power grab similar to what we’re seeing in the US.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged constitutional reform and democracy | 32 Comments

Ed Davey on Kuenssberg: Lib Dems have a moral obligation to win

By Caron Lindsay | Sun 25th January 2026 - 12:55 pm

Ed Davey did his traditional start of year interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg this morning. The conversation started with Donald Trump backing down on his disgraceful comments about British troops in Afghanistan.

Ed said he was grateful to the King for his intervention but said that this didn’t change his view of Donald Trump who has supported Putin on Ukraine.

They moved on to discuss defence spending. Ed acknowledged that we do need to act.

Liberal Democrats have argued that we need to increase defence spending. We’ve called on the Government to issue war bonds. The Government hasn’t shown how to increase defence spending by the end of the decade.

We’re in a cold war type scenario.

We need to increase defence spending quickly.

There has to be a question on whether we can rely on the US. With Trump in the White House they are no longer a reliable ally.

Kuenssberg asked him how this would work? Was it Govt borrowing with a fancy name on it?

Ed said that we should do this over two years and cap it at £20 billion

Institutional investors and public would be able to buy these to give the defence industry needs to know that the money is behind it to make plans.

So let’s just step away from the interview for a moment. This seems to be another example of a new policy being announced – a bit like the 7 day guarantee for GP appointments – without any sort of due process in the party. There have been plenty opportunities to talk about, to consult on such an idea internally. Given the amount of surprise I am picking up in the party about today’s announcement, I feel that this could have been handled better

It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but there are ways of ensuring that there is buy-in from the party before making an announcement like this. Then you avoid people feeling like they are being disrespected. There have been concerns about power being grabbed to the centre with no accountability for some time.

Back to the interview now, Ed said that there were other things we need to do on defence given the dramatic changes since the last election which requires a step change. He wants to see things like pushing the Joint Expeditionary Force further and faster and invite Canada to join it.

Kuenssberg asked him whether we were avoiding a conversation on the amount we are spending on welfare and the NHS

Ed replied:

We are up for these conversations. We have talked about a digital services tax, a European rearmanent bank and we have called for cross party talks on how we get (defence spending) up to 3.5% beyond 2030.

Ed has been pretty bullish on his language on Trump, much more than Starmer has been. Kuenssberg asked him if he would be the same if he were PM. Would he call him a bully and an international gangster

My language might be a bit more nuanced but my approach would be the same.

He highlighted areas where the UK Government could do more, such as rejoining the Customs Union.

How did Trump back down on Greenland? EU standing together with a bazooka of retaliatory measures.

Trump is so unpredictable. I really worry for America – he is doing huge damage to their economy and their world standing.

He was then challenged on our glacially improving poll ratings and the fact that we have only a third or so of the members of Reform and the Greens. – we have ten times the number of MPs but Green at 170,000 and Reform on 210,000. Ed pretty much said he didn’t care about either.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged ed davey, featured, party strategy and sunday with laura kuenssberg | 29 Comments

Tom Arms’ World Review

By Tom Arms | Sun 25th January 2026 - 10:55 am

Middle powers rule. Or at least they should try to. That was the message of the erudite Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos this week. And as he spoke there were lot of sage heads nodding in agreement.

Carney started from the premise that the old US-led rules-based world order was over, finished, kaput, dead and buried.

Without specifically naming the American president, Carney made it clear that the US president had created a “rupture” in the diplomatic fabric and that humanity was entering a darker less kind world in which might makes right.

In this world there will be two major powers—China and the United States. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine and moves on the Baltic States and possibly Moldova and Poland, it could be a third power.

In such a world the smaller countries—and what Carney called “the middle powers”, were simply there to be exploited, squeezed, trampled upon and discarded without any concern for their rights or well being. But, said the former governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, there is a solution to this dark scenario: Join forces and create an economic, political, diplomatic and military bloc that protects the middle countries common values.

The middle countries need to cooperate more closely. The super powers work best by divide and conquer rule. Trump’s antipathy towards the EU is proof of that. So, to counter that policy the middle countries must not allow the US and China to divide them. They must—as much as possible—negotiate with the great powers as one bloc.

Carney’s key line at Davos was: “Middle powers must act together, because, if we are not at the table we are on the menu.”

Acting together means reduce dependence on great powers or on supply chains that can be used as leverage. It means diversifying economic, trade, energy and technology ties. Lesser dependence means lesser vulnerability.

Like-minded countries should partner with other like-minded countries to share the costs of defense, standards and resilience rather than leaving it to the great powers to set the parameters.

Mark Carney even had a name for his proposal—“variable geometry” which means countries negotiate a set of different alliances where different groups work together on specific issues based on shared values and interests.

If you want proof of the value of Carney’s words then just note Donald Trump’s reaction. He was so angry at Carney’s speech that he withdrew his offer to admit Canada to his Board of Peace. Well, if Trump doesn’t like it….

King of the World. That is effectively the job that Donald Trump is trying to create for himself with the creation of his “Board of Peace”. That is if it is successful.

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged board of peace, canada, davos world economic forum, greenland, iceland, mark carney and tom arms world review | 2 Comments

William Wallace writes… Defending Liberal Democracy against populist powers

By Lord William Wallace | Sun 25th January 2026 - 8:43 am

As we watch Donald Trump knock down the checks and balances built into the US constitution to constrain the powers of executive Presidents, with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, we need to think hard – and campaign about – the absence of similar checks within our own system of government. Britain’s unwritten constitution has rested, as Peter Hennessy famously said, on the ‘good chaps’ theory of constitutional behaviour: that no political leader who won a majority in the House of Commons would ever behave in an ungentlemanly fashion. Across Europe as well as in the USA we’re now learning that populist leaders are not gentlemen. So we must be out there making the case against unlimited populist government and for reforms to strengthen constitutional liberal democracy.

Reform of our over-centralised political institutions is at last creeping from the realm of political nerds into the field of active discussion. That’s partly because of a rising awareness that the outcome of the next election could become a constitutional crisis – either a Commons without any party large enough to form a government on its own or with only one coalition partner, or a party with a majority of seats elected on less than a third of those voting. It’s partly because we face a crisis of public distrust in national politics, with surveys showing much higher levels here than in comparable European democracies. And it’s partly that Britain is evidently suffering from an over-centralised state, in which the Prime Minister now struggles to with so many issues at once that long-term thinking is impossible.

Asked to contribute the other week to a discussion at the annual conference of the Institute for Government (the leading think tank on Whitehall, central government and public services), Andy Burnham argued that ‘we need to reform Westminster to bring about the reform of Whitehall.’. Our first-past-the-post electoral system, he went on, builds in a two-party system that rests on staged confrontation between government and its institutionalised opposition. The Whips’ control of government business and the majority party’s MPs stifles critical and constructive debate and inhibits cross-party cooperation. The Financial Times published a letter last Friday on similar lines. A list of City leaders set out ‘the economic case for coalition government’, arguing that ‘the see-saw of policies’ which accompanies the constant shuffling of ministers in this ‘era of politics as a blood sport’ deters investment and damages business confidence. The FT followed up with a full-page weekend article by Andy Haldane declaring that ‘the public has lost faith in the political system’ and asking ‘Has Britain become ungovernable?’

Continue reading »

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged featured and political reform | 9 Comments

Most Read

Op-eds

Mathew on Monday: why compromise is not a dirty word – lessons from Rob Jetten, D66, and Dutch politics (Mathew Hulbert)
Deep poverty rises again: Lib Dems have the policies to fix it (Katharine Pindar)
Ed Davey’s message for LGBT History Month (Caron Lindsay)
Jenni Lang replies to the Toast to the Lassies (Caron Lindsay)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)

Advert

Recent Comments

Katharine Pindar
Thanks to Joan Summers and David Raw. I also understood the safeguards of the Food Bank system run by Trussell Trust which David explains, and which Nonconformi...
Paul R
“ but a return to the customs union benefits both sides while keeping options open” There is no option available for this. THE customs union is for EU me...
Joan Summers
I’m afraid I disagree with your approach in one crucial point - there must be a set of values, principles or policies that we would never sell out. Yes, much ...
Nonconformistradical
I have a friend who chairs a Trussell Trust foodbank - my understanding is as reported above by David Raw...
Joan Summers
Thanks David I just volunteered at a local church which set up a food bank. I have no idea the processes used to vet those who turned up but I just felt that...