Mathew on Monday: Serious Times Demand Serious Leadership – Ed Davey needs to stop with the clowning around

These are not normal political times. These are not easy times. And they are certainly not times when large swathes of the electorate is crying out for gimmicks, distractions, or anything that looks remotely unserious. They are times of international instability, economic uncertainty, pressure on public services, and a deep distrust in politics. In moments like these, what voters are looking for above all else is seriousness, serious ideas. Serious tone, serious leadership.

Which is why, for many of us watching Ed Davey’s speech at Spring Conference in York yesterday, there was such deep frustration. Because there were good things in what he said. There were important themes about Britain’s place in the world, about security, and about the values we champion as Liberal Democrats.

But all of that was immediately overshadowed by what came next. The dancing.

At best it looked tone-deaf. At worst it looked profoundly inappropriate given the gravity of the times we are living through. To say it was inappropriate is an understatement.

Politics is about judgement. And leadership is about understanding the mood of the country. Voters who are worried about paying their bills, worried about the NHS, worried about global instability, are not asking whether politicians can dance (in Portcullis House or, indeed, the floor of Conference). They are asking whether they can lead.

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

Nuclear deterrent?

It’s the wrong time for any serious party leader to advocate getting rid of our nuclear weapons. Yesterday, Ed probably said the most sensible thing anyone could say. If we’re going to keep nuclear weapons, there is now a pressing need for them to be British.

It’s been said that it might be possible to jailbreak an F35. It’s also been said it doesn’t work like that. I don’t know if you can jailbreak a nuclear missile, but maybe we should have somebody working on it.*

But there is a substantial argument that our nuclear weapons will soon be useless – if they aren’t already – and the massive amounts of money spent on them prevents us from building up arms and capacity that we could actually use. And in my view we need to have a serious discussion about that.

Firstly, the unique characteristic of our deterrent is that it hides. Nobody knows where it is. Within a few years, I think five at most, that feature will be lost. Seagoing drones are already being used effectively. It will not be long before someone litters the oceans with drones. One will sit outside Faslane, watch as our nuclear sub sets sail, and hand it off to its mate as the sub gets out of range. And then everybody will know where HMS Vengeance is all the time, and our deterrent will be worthless.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment

Reuniting with Europe: Rebuilding What Brexit Broke

Six years after Britain left the European Union, the promise that we would “take back control” rings hollow. The truth is painful: Brexit has weakened our country. It has diminished our prosperity, our standing, and our confidence. What was sold as liberation has instead become a slow estrangement from our closest allies and from the European identity that once helped define us as an open, confident nation.

For Liberal Democrats, the damage goes deeper than trade or economics. Brexit was a rejection of something essential: our belief that Britain’s strength lies in cooperation and shared purpose. It narrowed our horizons and encouraged a politics of resentment and blame. For millions who see themselves as both British and European, it felt like being written out of the story of our own nation.

The Damage Done

Brexit has left marks on every part of our national life. Small firms struggle with new border checks that slow exports and drain their budgets. Farmers face endless forms and higher costs. Musicians and creative workers have lost easy access to European tours. Investment has slumped, and the “global trade revolution” we were told to expect has produced little reward.

Yet the damage is not only economic. It is emotional, generational, and cultural. For young people, the Continent is no longer a place of effortless study, work, and discovery. The loss of Erasmus+ was not a policy detail but a breaking of connection. Freedom of movement, once taken for granted, is now a memory, and many Britons are only beginning to understand what that freedom meant. Families that once moved easily between London and Lisbon or Glasgow and Athens now feel distance where closeness used to be.

Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Tagged and | 7 Comments

Read and watch: Ed Davey’s speech to Conference

Ed Davey’s speech to Conference yesterday is already proving controversial within the party. His announcement that we are now calling for the country to develop its own independent nuclear deterrent had one member in tears and others mystified. Given that we will be debating a paper on international security in Autumn, people were wondering why that proposal could not have been properly announced as part of that process.

Anything to do with nuclear weapons has long been an emotive issue for the party.  Over dinner the other night, we were talking about the (before my time) leadership defeat on its proposal of developing a nuclear weapon with France at the Eastbourne Liberal Assembly. What will happen on the 40th anniversary of that? We have had many knife edge debates on this subject which have often led to fudge and long grass and the “part time submarine” coalition era proposal is ridiculed every Glee Club to the tune of Yellow Submarine.

The world is a different place now. The Cold War was thawing back in 1986 and people were feeling more optimistic. Having an erratic narcissist with neither understanding of or respect for international law makes everything a lot more complex and the global situation a lot more dangerous. When Conference comes to vote on this proposal, what will today’s members think? Will they consider that spending so much on nuclear weapons is what we need to do to keep our country safe or is the answer more soldiers, navy officers and airforce personnel?

However much you love Ed Davey’s stunts, and I love them a lot, most of the time,  I do have to think that coming on stage to Daddy Cool, complete with Macron style sunglasses, was an interesting choice when he was just about to talk about spending gazillions on a whole new generation of weapon of mass destruction. I guess it shows he has range.

Anyway, the video of his speech is below so you can watch for yourself. And below that is the text as specifically requested by one of our readers. This comes probably much later than he might have liked but the company and the black cherry gin at the Mason’s Arms was too good.

Posted in News | Tagged , , and | 14 Comments

Paul’s conference diary part two

Emergency motion – for my sins, I once got an emergency motion (on the situation in Fiji, since you ask) onto the ballot at a Bournemouth conference. Baroness Ludford was very sympathetic to it. It wasn’t chosen in the ballot but it gave me an appreciation of the work and energy involved into putting forward an emergency motion to conference. So, well done to the Young Liberals for getting “A Liberal Future for Under 18s” into the hall for debate. The Tories are proposing an outright ban on social media for under 16s following the ban in Australia (the home of compulsory voting). The answer to any such ban is three letters: VPN. It takes away a lifeline for teenagers discovering their identity, throwing the baby out with the bath water. This motion sensibly proposed a film style age rating system.

Posted in Conference | Leave a comment

Anna Sabine’s speech to Conference

Lib Dem Culture and Media sportsperson Anna Sabine delivered a robust defence of the BBC in her keynote speech to Conference yesterday.

She compared our public service broadcaster to the dreadful right wing news channels which broadcast the most outrageous and emotive misinformation.

She set out Lib Dem plans to protect the BBC – a supermajority and ratification by all nations for any changes in its charter to be implemented, and banning all political appointments to the BBC board among them.

There is even mention of farting.

Enjoy!

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

What’s on at Conference today?

Today at Conference, after a hotly contested emergency motions ballot, Conference will be debating a motion by the Young Liberals which would introduce a ratings system for social media for under 18s. You can read it in Conference Extra here.

Local Government finance and a motion on how to deal with Trump’s increasingly illegal and dangerous policies are also on the agenda before Conference ends with Ed Davey’s keynote speech.

Here’s the full agenda:

09.00–09.30

F15 Emergency motion – Social media for under 18s

09.30–10.00

F16 Question and Answer Session: Parliamentary Parties

10.00-10.15

F17 Speech: Peter Taylor, Elected Mayor of Watford

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

The best chance of voting reform in a generation

Invigorating. That’s the best word to sum up the LDER (Liberal Democrats For Electoral Reform) fringe last night.

The panel, brimming with optimism and passion, was (L to R in the photo above): Chair Keith Sharp (LDER), Emma Harrison (Make Votes Matter), Lena Swedlow (Deputy Director, Compass), Lisa Smart MP (Cabinet Office spokesperson & Vice Chair Fair Elections APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group)).

Posted in Conference | Tagged and | 4 Comments

Paul’s conference diary

Arriving in York, I was reminded of what a wonderful city this is. To watch the beautiful Ouse meandering amidst some wonderful old buildings, is enough to raise anyone’s spirits.

On Friday evening, at the historic Mason’s Arms, it was great to see old friends and enjoy marvellous food.

Today, I did a tour of the exhibition hall and bought my customary LGBT+ badge, signed up for Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform and supported Liberal Democrat Friends of Hong Kong.

Posted in Conference | Leave a comment

All the fun of the rally

While the Lib Dem Voice team were having delicious food in the Mason’s Arms last night, the loud and raucous Conference rally was taking place. The rally is like Glee Club and marmite and all these things you either love or don’t. I’m more on the “don’t” side because it just seems a bit like an American convention rather than a British Conference, but others love the fun and spirit and theatre of it.

I always feel like you can watch things like this later, but the chance to spend time with friends is precious so that’s what I tend to do.

So, here, for your entertainment, is all the fun of the rally.

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

What’s on at Conference today?

Greetings from my very comfy bed in York where I have spent most of my time since I arrived at lunchtime yesterday. I did manage to get out to make sure that the Mason’s Arms had an adequate of supply of Black Cherry gin and catch up with Lib Dem Voice colleagues, with more of us in one place at any time since Bournemouth 2019. Mary Reid, Mark Valladares, Paul Walter, Charley Hasted and I are all around so do come and say hello.

A Q and A from Ed Davey, speeches from MPs Anna Sabine and James MacCleary and debates on issues such as access to driving tests and lessons (which will see an effort to refer it back), preserving trial by jury, a liberal vision for universities, and mental health form today’s fun at Conference.

Don’t forget to try and wander round the exhibition as well and find out what the party’s affiliated organisations and some external bodies want to talk to us about.

If you are not here, you can watch on the livestream here.

Whatever you are doing, have a super day.

Here’s the full agenda.

There are, of course a plethora of training events and fringe meetings which you can find out about, along with the text of the motions, in the agenda and Conference Extra here.

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

ALDC’s by-election report – 12 March 2026

There were five principal council by-elections this week, of which all had a Liberal Democrat candidate on the ballot. Three council seats were being defended by us.

We held this seat in the Cotswolds with a solid lead while the right‑of‑centre vote splintered, leaving Reform as the nearest challenger and the Conservatives slipping to third place. Congratulations are due to Councillor Paul Evans and the local Liberal Democrat team for ensuring that this seat remained Liberal Democrat.

Cotswold District Council, The Beeches
Liberal Democrats (Paul Evans): 390 (52.7%, -3.0)
Reform UK: 168 (22.7%, new)
Conservatives: 122 (16.5%, -17.9)
Green: 53 (7.2%, -3.0)
Labour: 7 (0.9%, new)

Liberal Democrat HOLD

Turnout: 33.8%


In Oxfordshire, we were able to gain this seat from the Greens in this two-member ward, with Reform finishing well behind in third place. Congratulations are due to Councillor Caleb Pell and the local Liberal Democrat team for this result.

Vale of White Horse District Council, Abingdon Abbey Northcourt
Liberal Democrats (Caleb Pell): 647 (43.7%, +1.9)
Green Party: 480 (32.5%, -3.3)
Reform UK: 204 (13.8%, new)
Conservative: 101 (6.8%, -5.7)
Labour: 47 (3.2%, -6.5)

Liberal Democrats GAIN from Green Party

Turnout: 31.6%


In Penrith, we were able to hold off Reform and ensure that we retained this council seat. Congratulations are due to Councillor Barbara Jayson and the local Liberal Democrat team.

Westmorland and Furness Council, Penrith South
Liberal Democrats (Barbara Jayson): 749 (43.1%, -1.5)
Reform UK: 588 (33.9%, new)
Green Party: 225 (13.0%, +2.6%)
Conservatives: 173 (10.0%, – 15.5%)

Liberal Democrat HOLD

Turnout 23.5%

Meanwhile, in Liverpool, we unsuccessfully defended this council seat, slipping behind the Greens. Commiserations are due to Dave Thomas and the local Liberal Democrat team.

Posted in News | Tagged | 14 Comments

Gas panic: Have we learnt the lessons of 2022?

The threat of another energy crisis raises a simple question: did we actually learn the lessons from the last one?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in energy prices that drove household bills sharply higher. The shock had a profound impact on the UK economy and on household finances. Government support reportedly cost around £80 billion, and without emergency intervention typical household bills could have reached over £4,000 a year. Even now, prices remain more than a third higher than before the war.

But the crisis was not just economic. It was also a public health issue. New NHS data shows a sharp rise in cold-related illness between 2020 and 2025. Pneumonia admissions increased by 66%, hypothermia cases rose by 45%, and incidents linked to excessive cold climbed by 33%. Freedom of Information data recorded 4,701 admissions in England, with a further 1,127 cases in Scotland.

This should focus minds. Cold homes do not just affect comfort or bills. They affect health, and they place real pressure on the NHS, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Now there are warnings that rising tensions in the Middle East could trigger another spike in energy prices. If wholesale costs rise again, those pressures could return just as we approach another heating season.

So the question is whether the UK is becoming more resilient to energy shocks.

The government has brought forward around £15 billion through the Warm Homes Plan to 2030 to help households reduce their dependence on gas and improve energy efficiency. That works out at less than £3 billion a year. Given the scale and cost of the last crisis, it is unlikely to be enough on its own, particularly when awareness of the support available remains low among both households and policymakers.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 7 Comments

The duty of care for mental health at work is failing. We can change that 

A workplace duty of care exists in UK law for mental health. But it is not treated the same as physical health and safety by employers. That duty of care fails too many people.

The Whole Person Mental Health motion and policy paper coming to the 2026 Lib Dem Spring Conference in York does not address this. 

The paper is full of great policy and has my support. There is a gap where mental health at work should be. But we have a great platform. I hope our party can keep building on this paper where the current government which is unlikely to. 

We may help form a government after the next general election. Having a clear ready-to-go duty of care policy for mental health in the workplace could be so powerful for so many.

There are too many heartbreaking stories. And statistically, Mental Health First Aid England cite that four in ten experience high stress during the day. Deloitte found 77% experience burnout.

One friend had a seizure two years ago, attributed by doctors to work-related stress. Thank goodness he managed to stop his bike and pull over before the worst effects hit. I won’t go into personal or family stories here. But so many routinely go through intense stress, depression, and anxiety that is either entirely, or mostly, connected to their working conditions.

And managers don’t know how to deal with it. Or they make it worse. Sometimes on purpose, often it’s more because they don’t know. That same Deloitte study found only one in four thinks their employer cares about their wellbeing.

Countries like Sweden, Belgium, and New Zealand have explicit, codified requirements (ie “you must”) rather than the UK’s primarily guidance-led implementation. Australia’s requirements resemble “core safety compliance” where mental health is embedded in workplace law.

Mental health in the workplace should be treated the same as physical health and safety. Employees should know their rights and how to be supported. 

I first started thinking about this duty of care when, several years ago at a Bournemouth Autumn Conference, I met a campaigner from ForThe100, a group advocating for universities to have a legal duty of care for their students – given far too many still take their own lives and even more suffer with their mental health without any support.

Posted in News | Tagged , and | Leave a comment

Trust the people: the Liberal politics of human potential

There is a deep fault line running through politics today. On one side are those who believe people should be empowered – free to learn, question, create and fulfil their potential. On the other are those who believe society functions best when people are compliant – guided from above and discouraged from asking too many questions.

For Liberal Democrats, that divide goes to the heart of our philosophy. Our commitment to liberty, equality and democracy begins with a belief in people. Liberalism assumes that individuals, when given freedom, opportunity and a meaningful voice, are capable of shaping their own lives and contributing to the common good.

But history shows that every increase in human freedom has been contested.

  • The right to vote.
  • The right to education.
  • The right to organise politically.
  • The right of women to participate fully in public life.
  • The right to speak freely, worship freely and live openly.

Each advance faced fierce resistance from those who feared what might happen if ordinary people gained greater agency over their own lives. That tension continues today. Across the world we see governments concentrating authority, narrowing the space for dissent and tightening control over information. Even in long-established democracies, many citizens feel decisions affecting their lives are drifting further away from them.

The deeper question behind these trends is philosophical rather than procedural: what do we believe human beings are capable of? Do we trust people to think, deliberate and take responsibility? Or do we assume most people need to be managed – even controlled?

Taiwan’s digital minister Audrey Tang captured this when she said:

It’s not about whether people trust the government. It’s about whether government trusts the people.

Taiwan’s Covid response demonstrates what that philosophy looks like in practice. The government released public data and invited civic technologists to help design solutions. Hackathons brought together volunteers to build tools such as the now-famous “mask map”, showing real-time availability of masks across pharmacies. Citizens were not treated as passive recipients of policy. They became collaborators in solving the problem. Because information was shared openly, trust grew rather than eroded. Mask wearing became a widely accepted social norm rather than a political battleground.

Posted in Op-eds | Leave a comment

Support WASPI women at Conference

When Liberal Democrats gather at conference, we often debate policy in terms of budgets, systems and reforms. But sometimes an issue comes before us that cuts far deeper than policy mechanics. The injustice faced by women born in the 1950s, or WASPI women, is one of those.

This is not simply about pensions. It is about fairness, trust in government, and how we treat the generation of women who helped build the Britain we benefit from today.

Millions of women born in the 1950s were affected by rapid increases to the State Pension Age. In some cases, their retirement age rose by as much as six years. The real injustice, however, was not just the change itself, but how it was communicated.

Many women discovered these changes with as little as 18 months’ notice.

Eighteen months is not enough time to rebuild a retirement plan that someone has spent forty years working towards. Retirement planning is something people structure their entire working lives around. To suddenly move the goalposts so dramatically, without proper notice, left millions of women in an impossible position.

In contrast, by contrast, typically received up to six years’ notice for an increase of just one year, exposing the deeply unequal and gendered impact of these changes.

We now know that this was not simply unfortunate or unavoidable. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated and found maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions in failing to properly notify women of changes to their State Pension age. That is not the language of campaigners or political opponents; it is the official conclusion of the body Parliament established to hold government departments accountable.

Yet despite this finding, justice for these women is still being denied. On 29 January this year, the Labour Government announced that it would not be compensating these women.

This is particularly disappointing given how many now Labour cabinet ministers previously expressed their support for the WASPI women when they sought their votes, only to deny them any compensation at all once in office.

Lib Dem Women, the official body representing women in the Liberal Democrats, has submitted an emergency motion calling on the Government to accept the Ombudsman’s recommendations, to apologise to the women affected and to introduce a fair, transparent and comprehensive compensation scheme. You can read it here in Conference Extra.

This motion is about fairness, accountability and ensuring that women who were failed by the system are not ignored. The generation of women who are most affected are also the generation who started their careers before the Sex Discrimination Act so they could be sacked for getting pregnant or even married, didn’t have much in the way of childcare provision and were on the sharp end of the gender pay gap. To make them wait up to an additional six years for their State Pension is an injustice too far.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , and | 7 Comments

Lib Dem policies on Israel/ Palestine: hidden in plain sight

As we gather in York for Spring conference, and the Middle East is in turmoil, we must not let the war with Iran and its proxies shift our focus away from the need to take concrete steps towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The policy motion on ‘Trump and the wider world’ rightly reiterates existing Liberal Democrat proposals adopted in conference motions ‘The UK’s Response to Trump’ (Spring 2025) and ‘The Israel-Gaza Conflict – an immediate bilateral ceasefire and securing two states’ (Autumn 2024). Indeed, as far back as Autumn 2021, the party acknowledged ‘that illegal settlements represent a breach of international law, and that any UK trade which bolsters such activity is sustaining this breach, by legislating to cease trade with illegal settlements, unless and until a negotiated peace settlement is reached.’ As one of us argued on LDV in July 2024, following the ICJ advisory opinion, banning trade with Israeli settlements is not a policy choice, but a legal requirement. The 2021 motion has also sought to ensure ‘that there is equality of treatment for Israelis and Palestinians in the rules for visa free travel to the UK’. Following the recent recognition of Palestine, the notion that Palestinian inhabitants of that territory continue to be subjected to a different visa regime than its Israeli inhabitants is all the more troubling. These are all sensible, international law respecting policies. Yet how many people outside close Lib Dem circles are aware of them?

When the Labour government recognised the state of Palestine last September, it was following in the footsteps of longstanding Liberal Democrat policies, though political parties are not known to give credit to others (marriage equality anyone?). Unprincipled as it often is, Labour turned a corner when the British public did: polling suggested 44% of Britons supported recognition, and only 13% disagreed. However, a thumping 41% believe it won’t make any difference – a gesture, perhaps, that is unlikely to be followed by actions. Interestingly, last Autumn Labour conference passed a unions-backed emergency motion which stipulated that “to be more than a gesture, recognition must be accompanied by concrete measures” which included “fully suspend the arms trade with Israel and the UK-Israel trade” and “ban trade with the illegal settlements”. Yet, unlike Lib Dem motions, Labour conference motions do not appear to bind their party leadership – otherwise we would have had proportional representation by now…

Posted in Op-eds | 2 Comments

Latest issue of the Journal of Liberal History published

The Liberal Democrat History Group are pleased to announce that the latest issue of the Journal of Liberal History (issue 129, winter 2025-26) has just been published.

The Journal is published quarterly and can be purchased here or you can take out an annual subscription here. For those of you who are attending the spring conference, the Journal can be bought from the History Group stand in the exhibition area. You can also subscribe there too.

The Journal was first published in 1993 as a newsletter. It has come a long way since then and is read by people from all walks of life and all over the world.

The latest issue is packed, across its 56 pages, with features, articles and reviews.

Liberal History News

Michael Meadowcroft pens an obituary to his SDP colleague Dick Taverne, who died in October 2025. Taverne had previously been the Labour MP for Lincoln, holding the seat from 1962-74. He was a passionate pro-European, SDP candidate and finally sat in the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat.

Ed Davey unveils a plaque commemorating Sam Green, Liberal Councillor for Durham City Council and the first openly gay councillor elected in the UK. We have reprinted Ed’s article from the Liberal Democrat website,

We have also updated our Liberal candidates directory on the Journal of Liberal History website. This is a great resource and, who knows, you might find details of a long-lost family member who stood for the party.

Articles

Showcasing the work of historians, whether professional or amateur, is what the Journal does best. All the articles are peer-reviewed by leading historians, allowing for an accessible and interesting read.

In this issue, our authors have provided us with a broad set of articles:

The political skills of four Liberal Prime Ministers – Part 1: Rosebery and Campbell-Bannerman.

Alan Mumford compares the political skills of two different Prime Ministers. It is an entertaining and critical article that measures the worth of these men against seven-point criteria. Find out how they stack up!

The final act of ‘Liverpool’s most distinguished son’ – Gladstone, Hengler’s Circus, September 1896

Paul A. Nuttall recalls William Ewart Gladstone’s speech on the Armenian massacres in the city of his birth – his last significant political intervention.

Edward Donner and the rise of Manchester Liberalism

Derek Earis recounts the story of a major figure in Manchester Liberalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Liberalism: the ideas that built the Liberal Democrats

Peter Truesdale provides us with a report of the Liberal Democrat History Group’s fringe meeting in Bournemouth, 20 September 2025. The guest speakers at the meeting were Professor Jon Parry and Professor David Howarth, with Baroness Featherstone chairing. A video of the meeting is on our YouTube channel – here.

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Radical Proposal from The Spectator?

Tanya Park had an excellent article recently in LibDem Voice on the decline of The Telegraph and The Spectator, each displaying what she brilliantly describes as ‘permanent performative outrage’. But I’d like to suggest that occasionally an article comes along in The Spectator that is…. well, a bit radical!

Take the recent article by Michael Simmons, The Spectator’s Economics Editor, entitled ‘It’s a Faustian Pact: Rachel Reeves is giving bankers what they want’.  It begins with Peter Mandelson’s advice to the Chief Executive of the investment bank JPMorgan in 2009, that if he was worried about a pending tax on bankers’ bonuses he should ‘mildly threaten’ the UK government.

Sixteen years on and in Simmons’ view nothing has changed. Last November Rachel Reeves was considering how to plug a gap in the public finances, and the then deputy leader, Angela Raynor, proposed a windfall tax on the banks. Nothing doing. It was small businesses that got taxed instead. Simmons concludes by saying that ‘Peter Mandelson may now be an outcast for this Labour government, but his spirit still haunts the Treasury.’

Why is Reeves so tied to Treasury thinking? Partly because Labour came to power deeply conscious of the Liz Truss debacle. It appeared sensible to keep financial institutions reassured so that they could send the right signals to international markets and ensure that the Labour Party had financial credibility. Otherwise, Reeves might end up as another lettuce, destined to wilt like her predecessor.

As a result the stamp of ‘official’ approval remains intact, but the room for manoeuvre is closed off. Reeves is trapped in her Treasury cage while the radical thinking comes from elsewhere. Think of Daisy Cooper’s proposal to replace the treasury with a growth department.  ‘For too long political parties have allowed the Treasury tail to wag the political dog,’ she wrote. Cue howls of outrage from some within Labour, but this is precisely what Michael Simmons was saying. Think also of the Green resurgence. Yes, much of the ‘eco-populist’ blah-blah that comes from the Greens continues to annoy, but they have ceased focusing on their ‘core’ issues and have focused instead on increasing levels of inequality. The jibe of middle-class self-indulgence about the Greens ceased to resonate in the recent by-election. Hannah the Plumber managed to have an aura of authenticity that Keir the Toolmaker’s son could only dream of.

Posted in Op-eds | 12 Comments

Local Government Matters – a dedicated place for a Lib Dem Councillor on the conference committee

“Conference, this is just a tidying up amendment”. Well I hope this may be true.

Amendments to the Lib Dem constitution may not be the most exciting thing to discuss on the doorstep – but it is important that we recognise and value the hard work of our councillors at all levels of the party. This includes ensuring the party’s voice in local government is heard when planning the Federal conferences.

At the moment there is an inconsistency in representation on the FCC (Federal Conference Committee). Other sections of the party have places on the FCC guaranteed, for example the parliamentary party, the state parties of England, Scotland and Wales – so it is only right that our councillors have the same representation and profile.

For example there is a councillor representative on the Federal Policy Committee, so it is logical that the Federal Conference Committee should have a similar arrangement. While we currently have councillors on the FCC, this is very different from a guaranteed place. The role of a councillor representative is also different – they are speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat local government family, liaising with ALDC and our group at the LGA whilst doing so.

We now have over 3,200 Lib Dem Councillors and lead 75 councils across the country. As well as being the Party’s “ambassadors” on the ground in communities ranging from the Scottish Highlands over to Cornwall, our councillors contribute approximately £2.5 million every year to the party in tithes and other financial support.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | Leave a comment

Arthur Preece – a tribute

Arthur Preece OBE (1928 – 2026) was a figure of both regional and national stature in the Liberal Party, and then the Liberal Democrats. He will be greatly missed by those he worked with and supported in the party, as well as by his nieces and their families and his Church, the three passions of his life.

Born in Sheffield, one of four brothers, Arthur spent a period in the Army from the age of 18, later moving into NHS service in 1954.  He developed his professional skills in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire before moving North to Northumberland  in 1967 where he eventually became responsible for managing ten hospitals.

During his time in Northumberland, in 1973 he joined the Liberal Party, immediately making an impact. As a public servant he had to act behind  the scenes, but nevertheless threw himself into supporting  Alan Beith, now Lord Beith, in his initial election and then re-elections as MP. Lord Beith has since described his role as “crucial”, noting both his energy and his attention to detail. Another Northumberland campaigner described how, after moving into a new area brought into the constituency by a Boundary Review, Arthur built up a small active group and, with his methodical, patient and determined efforts, enabled it to win a council seat. This in turn helped to pave the way to another successful re-election for Alan Beith in the Berwick constituency.

This model of campaigning, so fundamental to our party’s success across the country, stood Arthur in good stead when he moved to Hartlepool, itself not obvious Liberal territory. Alongside his colleagues they began to win more seats, with Arthur’s beloved ward, Fens, one of the first in 1988. Over time, he and his colleagues turned Fens into a stronghold of three councillors as well as preparing the ground in other wards. His efforts reached their zenith in 2000 when, having previously extended their reach, the Liberal Democrats won a swathe of wards they had never won before and, in a hung council, Arthur was elected leader of Hartlepool Borough Council, a position which he held for two years. During those 24 years Arthur was also twice elected to Cleveland County Council in 1989 and 1993, serving until the council was abolished in 1996.He also stood for Parliament twice, as candidate for Hartlepool in 1982 and South Shields in 1992.

Posted in Obituaries | 5 Comments

The missing half of the beyond-GDP conversation

There is a welcome conversation happening in our party right now about the limits of GDP as a measure of success. As our Thriving Economy working group develops the policies that will take us into the next general election, colleagues are rightly asking whether we should measure what actually matters for people and the planet rather than treating growth as the ultimate aim.

I am firmly in the “measure what matters” camp. But I want to push this conversation somewhere it too often fails to go. Because the history of beyond-GDP thinking is littered with beautifully designed frameworks that changed nothing. The reason they changed nothing is not that policymakers hadn’t heard of them. It is that GDP supremacy serves powerful interests, and moving beyond it requires confronting those interests directly.

Let me put it bluntly. You cannot build a wellbeing economy without redistribution. New metrics are necessary but they are not sufficient. If we stop at dashboards and frameworks, we will have a more sophisticated way of describing the same broken system.

What the plans actually look like

Wales has shown that this is not abstract. The Well-being of Future Generations Act, passed in 2015, places a legal duty on public bodies to pursue wellbeing objectives across four dimensions: economic, social, environmental and cultural. It created a Future Generations Commissioner who can conduct formal reviews of public bodies and make recommendations they must respond to publicly. It is a genuine institutional innovation, but its limits are instructive too: the Commissioner’s powers remain largely advisory, and critics in the Senedd have called for stronger enforcement.

A UK-wide Wellbeing of Future Generations Act should learn from Wales and go further. It should embed wellbeing impact assessments into Treasury rules alongside traditional cost-benefit analysis, require departments to quantify outcomes using recognised measures like life satisfaction, mental health and social connectedness, and create an independent Future Generations Commissioner with the power to issue compatibility notices when legislation conflicts with wellbeing objectives, triggering mandatory parliamentary debate. Quarterly regional wellbeing dashboards, published by an expanded ONS, would give every community a clear picture of whether policy is actually working for them.

This is the institutional architecture that makes “beyond GDP” real rather than rhetorical. But architecture without funding is just a blueprint. The history of wellbeing frameworks, from the Stiglitz Commission to the UN’s own Sustainable Development Goals, confirms this: without the resources and political will to act on what the metrics reveal, measurement becomes an end in itself.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 24 Comments

Lib Dems for Growth

Last year, I wrote about the lack of a Lib Dem vision for economic growth here.

Since then, we have started to sketch out some ideas. Last month, in a speech encouragingly entitled “Get Britain Growing Again” Daisy Cooper, our Treasury Spokesperson, announced a new policy to establish a Department for Growth that would seek to de-fang the “anti-growth” Treasury. While this headline (and a move to Birmingham) got most of the attention, Daisy also clearly stated that “Getting Britain Growing Again must be any government’s number one goal”.

I agree with this and, in my earlier article, I rather unabashedly declared that “fixing the UK’s growth problem underpins EVERYTHING”. Without growth, we cannot fix the issues we campaign on and care about, whether that is adult social care, SEND, the NHS, defence and inequality. Many commentators on LDV disagreed with my point at the time, but it seems Daisy, at least, agrees.

The policy announcement on reforms to the Treasury were a welcome acknowledgement that the UK has a wildly over-powered and centralised department that focuses, above all else, on short term spending control and arbitrary targets. Reforming the Treasury will be difficult. If we are to succeed, then I think local authorities and mayoralties need to be set free. We need meaningful fiscal devolution to allow local government to invest and build infrastructure – a tram for Leeds anyone?

While a welcome announcement, I feel that we need to go further to have a meaningful and eye catching vision for growth for the UK. I am hopeful that the Thriving Economy working group can help build out such a vision. They have published a consultation paper ahead of Spring Conference and are due to host a session on their paper on Friday.

Crucially, a meaningful vision for growth has the power to really set the Liberal Democrat message apart. Right now, the electorate has a choice of a lacklustre government that, notwithstanding their intermittent references to growth being their “number one mission”, they just appear to be a continuation of the incompetence of the previous Conservative administration. Reform are a grab bag of scape-goating, wild promises of tax cuts with a dose of quasi-Thatcherism. The resurgent Greens appear to be re-inventing themselves as Momentum style left populists.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 3 Comments

The hidden epidemic among our young men that nobody is talking about

Young men in this country are in crisis. An increasing number are disengaged from work, education and society. An increasing number are being radicalised into the far right through social media. And an increasing number are being signed off on mental health grounds.

There are many factors behind these trends. But there is one that is barely discussed in mainstream politics, one that connects all three. It is a drug. It is not illegal to possess. It can cost as little as £3.50 per week, often purchased through apps such as WhatsApp or Telegram, and posted through Royal Mail. It is incredibly accessible and insanely cheap. It is being promoted to boys as young as 12 by influencers with tens of millions of followers. And almost nobody in our politics is talking about it. That drug is anabolic steroids.

The growth in use is being driven by an online philosophy known as the “blackpill”, promoted through TikTok under terms like “looksmaxing”. This is a part of the wider online manosphere. The blackpill claims that physical appearance is the ultimate form of status, that your looks should be your main, or only, priority, and that your appearance is the reason you lack friends, sexual relationships, financial opportunities and a more fulfilled life. It preys on the insecurities of young men and boys. One of the methods it promotes is anabolic steroids: not just to accelerate muscle growth, but on false claims that artificially elevated testosterone levels can reshape your facial structure. Google searches for “looksmax” are up 300% in the UK since 2023, with steroid-related searches up 30% over the same period.

This is not a niche corner of the internet. The hashtag “looksmax” is associated with over 500,000 videos on TikTok. “Tren” (Trenbolone), one of the most potent compounds, first developed in the 1960s to bulk up cattle, is associated with over 10.3 million videos on TikTok. Arguably the most prominent creator in this space, Clavicular (real name Braden Peters, aged 20), has accumulated 27 million likes on TikTok and earns over $110,000 per month from live streaming alone, before revenue from TikTok, YouTube, sponsorships or his paid looksmaxing course. He says he started injecting testosterone at 14. Any teenager who can navigate social media can source anabolic steroids within minutes.

Posted in Op-eds | 2 Comments

The Lib Dems must challenge the economic system – but with the plans to match

The Lib Dems recently announced plans for a Department for Growth. I can agree with splitting the Treasury into finance and “strategic economy” departments. But the messaging doesn’t suggest that our party is that keen on challenging (or being seen to challenge) the economic status quo: an economic system which is not working for too many people nor the environment. 

Challenging the economic system does NOT mean de-growth. It does mean challenging and moving away from GDP and growth – regardless of what, where, and for who – being the ultimate aims. “Growth agnostic” is the technical term. But more clearly, it means that it shouldn’t matter if we grow GDP or not, because we measure our success based on what genuinely matters for people and nature. GDP becomes one of many metrics and levers, but not the overarching objective.

What separates us from the Greens in the minds of the many sustainability professionals I meet is that we have vision AND the plans to match. We’re at risk, not least because we have so many current MPs facing the conservative party, of limiting those visions and plans for what society could be. 

There is a (personally conflicting and valid) conversation to be had as to whether stopping Reform, the Conservatives, and their hate-filled divisive politics is so important that we ensure we win, where we currently get our best results, with more cautious politics – enough to make sure there’re enough Lib Dem MPs to group with Labour and the Greens after the next election. 

But for the sake of this article, and in hope that we can do better than cautious, let’s be ambitious enough to manage these conflicts and nail the best of all worlds. Especially as our “Thriving Economy” working group comes up with our new economic policies that will take us into the next general election and might very well make it into some form of government.

I’ve written recently that two things must happen in 2026 to accelerate the move away from GDP and growth-at-all-costs toward judging society based on what matters for people and the environment.

  1. Clarity on the end point and principles of a new economic vision: which we have, in so many different forms that I discuss in the articles linked throughout this piece, like Natural Capital (alongside Human and Produced Capital), Doughnut Economics, Missions (I know…), SDGs, GEP, and countless other frameworks, metrics, and philosophies. We need to align. The promising UN High Level Expert Group on Beyond GDP is working on this right now. 
  2. A transition plan for that new economic vision: How do we unpick the current economic system from inside itself? And build a step-by-step path from now to that end point. With core principles that allow continuous improvement even after the economy is measured differently. Principles that allow flexibility far beyond a rigid plan. An approach that also wins the political conversation, as well as proving that a new economic approach can work for people and the environment, as well as working within the current system. We have gotten this roadmapping approach right before, for example in our 2024 EU policy and 2019 decarbonization plan. (The latter, alongside the people, was a big reassurance that I’d joined the right party in 2019!)

For a longer read on the indicators, frameworks, philosophy, liberalism, tipping points ahead, communication challenge, see again this Critical Mass for Sustainability piece and broader article library.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 10 Comments

Caroline Pidgeon Tackling road safety by helping vulnerable road users

Just one per cent of traffic, but twenty-one per cent of fatalities. A shocking statement. This is the reality of motorcycling on our roads. This underpins the danger of being a motorcyclist on Britain’s roads. It is a disparity that shows no sign of diminishing nor, unfortunately, being addressed by government.

The Government’s recent Road Safety Strategy is broadly welcome. While one of the measures in the Road Safety Strategy will help motorcyclist safety, namely increased funding for combatting the scourge of potholes on Britain’s roads, there is little else that is new or transformative for motorcyclists, one of the most vulnerable groups of road users.

The Strategy discusses how “Legislative changes introduced to improve safety for motorcyclists have resulted in a complex motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime, with motorcyclists remaining at greater risk of KSIs than many other road users.” But the actions to make things safer are limited.

The main thrust of the government’s plans is that it will be consulting on changes to the training, testing and licensing regime for motorcyclists. Whilst this is very welcome, and something I have had concerns about for some time, especially with the increase in delivery drivers, more is needed.

In some ways, the government acknowledges the dire statistics on road safety for motorcyclists. Then they explain how, thus far, the main safety changes that successive governments have introduced have done very little to affect motorcyclist safety. The follow up is to then announce that they will do more of the same tinkering around the rules.

Meanwhile, the same Road Safety Strategy introduced plans for 18 new mandatory technologies for cars and other powered four-wheel vehicles. This is a clear example of how, for most motorists, the new Road Safety Strategy is very good. There is plenty to celebrate. But this only makes the difference in treatment that much harder to accept.

It is a glaring hole in the strategy. Motorcyclists, by the nature of a motorbike, are more vulnerable and yet the government appears to not want to embrace any potential safety advancements.

Since 2018, all new cars have been hooked up the eCall programme, a national programme for crash detection. However, despite motorcyclists being far more vulnerable in crashes there is no equivalent system even being considered by the government. This is a missed opportunity in the strategy.

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

Hina Bokhari writes… After years of delay, the Government’s Islamophobia definition still misses the mark

It’s finally here.

After years of campaigning by Muslim organisations and communities, against the backdrop of record levels of hate crime, the government has finally chosen the holiest time of Ramadan to publish its definition of what it calls “anti-Muslim hostility”.

And what do we have to show for all that waiting?

A watered-down version of a definition we already had.

The 2018 All-Party Parliamentary Group definition of Islamophobia was endorsed by more than 800 community organisations, over 100 academics, and every major political party except the then-governing Conservatives. It was the result of genuine consultation and rooted in the lived experience of Muslim communities.

So why has it taken this government years to deliver something that appears deliberately diluted? Why was the recommendation of its own independent working group seemingly not good enough? And why, throughout this entire process, were grassroots Muslim organisations largely excluded from meaningful engagement?

This isn’t just about the wording of the definition – though many have already raised serious concerns about what was diluted and why. This is about the process that produced it.

The Macpherson Inquiry established a clear principle: communities must play a central role in defining the racism they experience. Yet that lesson appears to have been ignored.

The process has been marked by exclusion, by hand-picked representatives replacing genuine grassroots engagement, and by a government seemingly more concerned with managing political optics than listening to the communities it claims to protect.
And perhaps the most telling failure of yesterday’s announcement was what the government chose not to say.

In 2016, the UK government adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. That decision was taken quickly and with broad political consensus. Yesterday’s announcement could have been an opportunity to say clearly: we are doing for Muslim communities what we already did for Jewish communities nearly a decade ago.
Instead, that comparison went unspoken.

That matters because bad-faith actors, including much of the British media, have spent years spreading the lie that recognising Islamophobia somehow gives Muslims “special treatment”. The truth is the opposite. British Muslims are not asking for something extraordinary. We are asking for the same recognition and seriousness that other forms of racism rightly receive.

Fairness, not favours.

The key question is where we go from here. Organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamophobia Response Unit are not endorsing this definition at the present time. They are reserving judgement, recognising that a definition is merely a starting point.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 2 Comments

New team at the Campaign for Gender Balance

The Campaign for Gender Balance is there to help women develop and stand for public office. They support women through selection processes, provide mentoring, run brilliant training like the Future Women MPs weekends. I have been on the receiving end of their support and they are brilliant.

Their chair and vice chairs are appointed by the Federal Board at the beginning of each three year cycle. Yesterday, they announced that Cllr Julia Cambridge would continue as Chair, joined by Cllr Donna Harris and Cllr Alice Bridges-Westcott as the two Vice Chairs.

Here’s the  Instagram announcement from Lib Dem Women, the official organisation representing women:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Liberal Democrat Women (@libdemwomen)

Donna Harris, who is also Lib Dem Women’s chair, said:

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

The Cry of a British-Iranian Lib Dem Woman

“I’ll call you once I get changed,” I told my sister. “Got absolutely soaked.” She said she was sorry I’d got cold and wet. “It was water, not bullets,” I replied. She cried.

That afternoon in Munich, I had joined over one million Iranians and their supporters worldwide to remember the tens of thousands massacred by the Islamic Republic on 8 and 9 January this year. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi had called on all who stand with Iranians to come together on a Global Action Day for Iran on Valentine’s Day, which also fell on the 40th day after the massacre. In Iranian culture, the 40th day after a death is a solemn threshold, when family and friends gather to mourn. This time, Iranians danced in defiance, sang instead of weeping, and told each other that freedom is closer than it has ever been.

In Munich alone, police estimated that 250,000 people had gathered to demand the fall of the regime. The following Monday, Iranian lawmaker Javad Hosseinikia called on the Foreign Ministry to expel Germany’s ambassador in Tehran in retaliation. The regime’s fury only confirmed that these demonstrations are working.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 6 Comments

Mathew on Monday – ‘Patriotism’ should build communities- not police them

The government has today announced plans for a “patriotic renewal” of Britain’s communities. Ministers say the policy is about strengthening social cohesion and promoting the “shared values” that unite us as a nation.

Fine words, for sure. But what exactly does it mean in practice? Because when politicians start talking about patriotism in this context, it can sometimes feel worryingly close to the language of the populist Right. Too often “patriotic renewal” becomes shorthand for cultural suspicion – a politics that encourages people to look sideways at their neighbours and ask whether they quite belong.

That isn’t renewal. It’s division.

If the government truly wants to renew our communities, the starting point should be far more practical-and far less rhetorical. For over a decade before the last election, Britain experienced the hollowing-out of local life. Libraries closed. Youth clubs disappeared (something I have consistently rallied against, in speeches at Lib Dem Conferences, meetings at Parliament, and so on). SureStart centres were stripped away. Community centres were sold off. High streets declined. The public spaces where people naturally come together were slowly dismantled.

That is where the real damage to community happened. Because communities are not built by speeches about national identity. They are built in the everyday spaces where people meet one another as neighbours and citizens. The library where children discover books and older residents escape loneliness. The youth club where teenagers find friendship, guidance, and opportunity. The SureStart centre where struggling parents receive the support that helps families to thrive.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 6 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • paul barker
    I think the article underestimates the damage Brexit did. If you took someone from 2015 & showed them Britain now the thing that would shock them most is th...
  • David Allen
    The urgency is real and the proposal to work toward independent deterrence deserves proper analysis - which Davey has not offered. Here are a few issues to con...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    David, as a democrat, do you agree that people are entitled to an informed choice on what system they live in? That they are allowed to weigh the pros and cons?...
  • David Raw
    There's a bit of a question about how relevant and legal is a document (Magna Carta) arranged by a cabal of Norman hereditary 'noble' land grabbers (unelected ...
  • David
    There doesn't really need to be a national commission on ER as STV is by far the best PR system, maintaining a constituency link and giving max choice to the vo...