The formation of the Liberal Democrats (short story long)

The history of UK liberalism can be traced back to the 19th century, when the Liberal Party was formed as a merger of several smaller liberal groups. The party was led by figures such as William Gladstone and David Lloyd George, and it was a major force in British politics for much of the 20th century.

UK liberal successes

The Liberal Party accomplished a number of major achievements in terms of social and economic reform, many of which are the foundations of what we consider modern western societies.

The Liberal Party played a major role in passing the Education Act of 1902. This act was aimed at providing free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 5 and 14 and was seen as a major step towards improving access to education for working-class citizens.

The Liberal Party also passed the National Efficiency Act of 1906. This act was aimed at increasing the efficiency of government departments and was a major step towards modernizing the British state.

In addition, the Liberal government passed the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, which ensured that trade unions were recognized as legal entities and their rights were protected. This act was a major achievement in terms of workers' rights, and it was a significant step towards improving the rights of workers in the UK.

Another major accomplishment of the Liberal Party was the passage of the People's Budget of 1909. This budget was the first of its kind in British history, as it imposed a "super tax" on the wealthy and increased social spending on programs such as housing, education and old-age pensions. This budget was a significant step towards a more equal distribution of wealth and was a major achievement in terms of social reform.

The people’s budget, was bitterly opposed by conservative-unionists in the House of Lords, many of whom were land owners and would have been subject to new land sales taxes in the people budget. This constitutional stand-off was resolved with the Parliament act of 1911 reshaping the relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords. This essentially removed the ability of the Lords to veto legislation, and massively increased parliament’s accountability to the people with a more representative system.

One of the major accomplishments of the Liberal Party was the passage of the National Insurance Act of 1911. This act provided basic health and unemployment insurance for working-class citizens and was a significant step towards the creation of a welfare state in the UK.

Decline of the Liberal Party

The First World War created massive political instability within the government of the time. Many books have been written on this complex period of time. To briefly summarise, immediately after the armistice of 11th November 1918, ending the First World War, the governing coalition called a general election. Specific candidates were endorsed by the coalition which was highly popular following the war victory, leading to a massive landslide in favour of the coalition government of David Lloyd George, who had replaced H. H. Asquith as Prime Minister in December 1916.

Despite them both being Liberals, they battled for control of the party, which was rapidly losing popular support, while the conservatives gained credibility in office and the labour party started rising as a 3rd party, going on to win national elections starting the two party system we see so entrenched today.

The Liberal Party never managed to resolve its internal struggles and in the context of the changing political landscape of the country, it was in decline by the 1970s.

The Conservative Party, under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, was able to tap into the growing discontent with the Labour Party's policies of nationalisation and state control of the economy. The Conservative Party's focus on economic liberalism and free market policies was seen as a more viable alternative to the Liberal Party's more interventionist approach.

The Liberal Party failed to adapt to the changing demographic and social landscape of the country. The party was seen as being out of touch with the changing values and priorities of the electorate, particularly on issues such as race and immigration. The party was seen as being too closely associated with the old-fashioned values and traditions of the past, which were no longer resonating with the electorate.

Additionally, the party’s internal divisions caused growing rifts between its members on multiple fronts. Towards the end of the 1970s this rift was dominated by those who were pro-European Union and those who were against closer relations with Europe, this led to the party losing support from both sides of the spectrum. It also struggled to form a clear and consistent narrative and message, which made it difficult for the party to connect with the electorate.

Wait, did somebody say racism just now?

While we should always be careful of judging people in history in the context of our present day values, it’s regretfully the case that there were policies and attitudes within the early UK Liberal Party that were racist, particularly in regards to attitudes towards non-white immigrants.

It’s worth making the point - the Liberal Party that led the UK through the age of the First World War was leading a colonial empire, which by its nature oppressed its subjects for the benefit of its economic elites.

The government (which was Liberal) had a record of racist policies and attitudes towards non-white populations in the colonies. For example, during the early 20th century, the party supported the forced relocation of indigenous people in British colonies such as Australia and Canada, which resulted in the displacement and suffering of those communities.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Liberal Party often advocated for restrictive immigration policies and had a "strongly racist" attitude towards non-white immigrants, particularly those from Asia and Africa.

In the period leading up to the First World War, lots of members of the Liberal Party had views on the issue of eugenics, which was a belief in the genetic superiority of certain races.

It is worth noting that these views and policies were not unique to the Liberal Party, but were prevalent in many other political parties and in society as a whole.

It's important to note too that the liberal party, like any political group, has undergone transformations over time (the whole point of this blog post in fact) and these racist views and policies are no longer held by the current Liberal Democrats. The party has since apologized and recognized the negative impact of the racist policies and views of the past, and today it actively campaigns for inclusion and equal rights for all individuals.

However, it is also important to recognize the negative impact that those views and policies did have on marginalized communities.

Liberalism for me, but not for thee.

Gang of 4 enters the chat

So, by the 1970s, the Liberal Party had declined in popularity, and it was clear that something needed to be done to revitalize the party.

In 1981, a group of prominent figures within the Labour Party known as the Gang of Four broke away from the party to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP). This group was led by Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen, and Bill Rodgers, as they were frustrated by the growing left-wing influence within the Labour Party.

They believed that the Labour Party had become too ideological and too focused on class-based politics, and they wanted to create a new political party that would be more focused on social democracy and economic liberalism.

The formation of the SDP marked a major turning point for the Liberal Party, as it provided an opportunity for the party to merge with a new and dynamic political force.

In 1981, the Liberal Party and the SDP created a formal Alliance to contest the 1983 and 1987 general elections (and local elections around this time). In 1988 the two parties formally merged to form the Social and Liberal Democrats which soon rebranded to The Liberal Democrats.

The Alliance and then merger brought together the liberal and social democratic ideologies of the two parties, and it was seen as a way to create a new and more viable political force that could challenge the dominance of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

The coming together of the Liberal Party and the SDP was not without its challenges, however. There were some disagreements between the two parties over issues such as the role of the state in the economy, and there were also some concerns about the leadership of the new party.

Nevertheless, the alliance and then merger were seen as a necessary steps in order to revive the fortunes of the Liberal Party, and it was generally viewed as a success.

The Alliance was able to make significant gains in the 1983 general election, and they were able to secure a number of seats in parliament. This was a significant achievement, and an obvious sign that the coming together had been successful.

The party continued to grow in popularity throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. While it’s fair to say the Liberal Democrat’s have struggled to break out from being a 3rd party, they are undeniably a major force in British politics.

The Current Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats continue to be a significant party, with a large membership and lots of local support. Although they are proportionally underrepresented within parliament (in part due to first past the post) they have huge influence in both policy development and within local politics with large numbers of local authorities run by Liberal Democrat administrations.

The core values of the Liberal Democrats (Liberty, Equality, Community) are explored in the constitution:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

The full constitution can be found here: https://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution

References and further reading

• education england the 1902 education act

• parliament.uk liberal reforms

• navigator.health.org.uk the national insurance act 1911

• wikipedia.org Government of David Lloyd George

• wikipedia.org David Lloyd George

• Rose, E. (2012). The Emergence of the British Two-Party System, 1867-1914. Routledge.

• Sykes, R. (2008). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. I.B.Tauris.

• Middlemas, K. (1969). The liberal government 1909-1915. London: Longman.

• Stokes, R. (1969). The people’s budget: 1909–1910. London: Hambledon Press.

• Lewis, J. (1978). The Voluntary Principle: Philanthropy in the United Kingdom since the Second World War. London: George Allen & Unwin.

• Baker, D. (2015). The Conservative Party and racism. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Rose, E. (2012). The Emergence of the British Two-Party System, 1867-1914. Routledge.

• Sigsworth, E. (2019). Immigration control and the liberal state: the politics of non-citizenship in Britain, c. 1885-1940. Bloomsbury Publishing.

• Sykes, R. (2008). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. I.B.Tauris.

The Future is Slow: How Low Speed Rail could revolutionise UK rail capacity

I recently co-authored a paper at the Centre for Asset Studies where we argue for investment in low speed rail. The full paper can be found at the think tank’s website here.

But long story short…

1. Rail is environmentally friendly and efficient, which is good.

2. UK passenger rail faces capacity constraints, which is bad.

3. Investment in new low speed freight routes would be better than investment in new high speed passenger routes

Reflecting on my time as a Political Party Diversity and Inclusion Officer

I recently left my position as the Diversity and Inclusion Officer for a local political party where I live. I had a lot of fun, met some amazing people, and learnt lots about diversity, inclusion, and local politics. 

I was also able to create a positive impact in the party and my local community. Now it feels like a good time for me to move on to new challenges, and for someone with fresh ideas, fresh thinking and fresh energy to move things forward.

I will still remain an activist in the party, and I am really excited about the party’s future.

Three things I learnt from the role:

TL;DR (1) People are different. (2) Diversity and Inclusion pledges are good. (3) People should get involved in local politics. 

Short story long…

(1) We all have certain privileges and certain disadvantages in life.

It is useful to put conscious effort into empathising with others to try to understand their experience, and to understand how those experiences can shape who they are, and how they present themselves. Notably:

• The most outwardly happy people might be feeling low.

• Those projecting confidence might feel insecure.

• The dour can be friendly and witty.

• People who are quiet are often passionate about their beliefs.

The point being - different people are different (obviously). It is foolish to behave as if people are the same. 

One practical consideration from this, is that the things that make some people feel safe and comfortable, will not work for others. If we design workshops, meetings, socials, or activities to be the same way every time, then we will make some people feel very comfortable every time and others excluded.

(2) Pledges are useful

After extensive engagement with the party Membership and Officers, I helped create the party’s Diversity and Inclusion Pledge. This pledge is shared with new members and prospective candidates to represent the party.

You can read the full pledge here:

I am fully aware that nice pledges, policies and platitudes by themselves don’t create change. However, a good pledge, endorsed by the party leadership, can have a positive impact.

The engagement around the ideas of diversity and inclusion pulled us together as an executive team. It was useful to be reminded of the core values and wider purpose of why we turn up to volunteer for the party. The pledge also triggered conversations within our membership, motivated action, and gave license for people to start to create tangible change.

A pledge doesn’t “solve” diversity and inclusion but it is a pretty decent step on the journey.

(3)“Politics” is loaded with preconceptions and distrust. It shouldn’t be.

It’s sad, but the most common response to me sharing that I volunteer in local politics is “oh that sort of thing isn’t for me”. 

And I might also note that the people who are most likely to respond with “me too” or “where do I sign up” are typically middle aged heterosexual cisgender white men. CLEARLY there is nothing wrong with those people participating. But it is noteworthy that the demographics of people who are typically politically active do not match the demographics of the people they would seek to represent.

This demographic mismatch is important, because the mismatch between people and politicians, results in our social and economic system being designed from limited perspectives. To give a very clear example of this- up until recently women’s sanitary products were taxed as “luxury items”. I don’t suppose this was a deliberate or malicious decision - it was just that the historically male dominated parliament simply did not experience or even see the issue. It has only been since parliament has become more balanced, and following a concerted campaign of over two decades that the tampon tax will be scrapped. BBC News article on scrapping of the tampon tax.

Why is political participation is so low? Well at a national level, corruption and cronyism are endemic. I don’t want to go into negative ramble - instead I highly recommend checking out the Good Law Project for details about ongoing corruption and how to fight it - goodlawproject.com

But having said that- local politics is actually pretty good. Every politician I’ve worked with has genuinely wanted to make a positive difference. Even my interactions with politicians from other parties has generally been positive. And more importantly, there are many charity and community groups engaged in making our community a better place to live. And although most local charities don’t class themselves as political, they by necessity work with local government to coordinate and support each other.

I guess what I’m saying, is that while our individual abilities to make an impact at a national level are limited, and that reading national press is isolating and disempowering, I would highly recommend that anyone and everyone should get involved in local community groups - like political parties, charities or other groups - because it both connecting and empowering. It makes our communities better and also enriches our lived experience.

P.S.

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it.

P.P.S

You can also subscribe to my blog here -

Diversity and Inclusion Pledge for the Watford Liberal Democrats

After extensive engagement with the Watford Liberal Democrat Membership and Party Officers, I helped create the party’s Diversity and Inclusion Pledge.

This pledge is shared with new members and all prospective candidates to represent the party. It is aligned with the party constitution and is built from core Liberal Democrat values.

---

The full pledge is as follows:

Diversity & Inclusion Pledge

Diversity and Inclusivity are at the heart of what we do in the Watford Liberal Democrats.

I believe in the constitution of the Liberal Democrats. Specifically, I believe in building and safeguarding a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

To the best of my endeavours I commit to championing the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, and I acknowledge and respect individuals right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

All humans have equal value regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, age or any other attribute.

I believe that we should all be free to love and enter into consensual relationships with anyone we choose regardless of gender or sexuality.

I value the uniqueness of individuals: although we are all different, we all have equal value as human beings.

I believe that humans are better when we work together, I will seek to bring together, and represent, all members of the community in which I live.

I will engage with, and actively listen to, all those who will be affected by decisions made through the functioning of the local party, and any of my roles in any levels of government.

I believe that our local party is at its best when we enable all our members, activists, and volunteers to be at their best.

I believe that having all our members included and active maximises the productivity of the party, brings in new and different ideas, and most importantly, enriches our shared human experience.

I pledge to champion diversity and inclusivity through my role in the Watford Liberal Democrats and any elected position.

Northern Mega City

New paper published discussing a proposed plan for northern infrastructure investment to create a single urban centre with sufficient economic gravity to rebalance the UK economy.

Go to paper at the centre for asset studies website here

Responding to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report

I recently drafted the Watford Liberal Democrat Statement on the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.

It’s sad that it still needs to be said that racism is bad, racism exists, and it is the moral duty of those with power to take action to end racism.

The Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities missed the opportunity to make a clear, bold statement on the state of race equality in this country, to expose the real issues and to make recommendations that would address them in a decisive and comprehensive manner.

Racism in the UK in 2021

The evidence and impact of racism in the UK is overwhelming - ethnic minority communities are at a disadvantage in almost all sectors of society:

In education, the difference in attainment between white working-class children and black Caribbean (British) heritage children is negligible. However, after leaving school, white working-class children are significantly more likely to be taken on into work and will likely earn more while in work.

Black Caribbean and mixed-race students are three times more likely to be expelled from school, when found to have committed similar offences to white students.

In healthcare, black women in the UK have a mortality rate which is five times higher than the UK average and have an infant mortality rate which is twice that of the UK average.

In the justice system, black men are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched. Young black people (under 16s) are more likely to be given a criminal record for the same crimes as white children.

Also overlooked are the disproportionate impacts of Covid on black communities, and the hostile environment which deported the Windrush generation who came to our country to help us rebuild after the war.

This is especially significant to me, as I am a child of the Windrush Generation. My father was born in Barbados when it was still a British colony. He moved to the UK and served our country as a Commando in the British Armed Forces. The hostile environment – where the government instructed it’s agents to assume that people exactly like my father aren’t British unless they can prove it through a convoluted and extensive process – is outrageous and should be considered a national embarrassment.

All Lives Matter

This report has echoes of the expression that because “All Lives Matter” we don’t need to say that “Black Lives Matter”. Do all lives matter? Yes. Clearly. 100%. As a Liberal Democrat I absolutely believe in equality.

The problem is not the principle that all lives matter. The problem is that we don’t treat all lives as if they mattered equally. The sad truth is that black lives in the UK are not treated as if they have equal worth. And therein lies the problem with the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report – it refuses to acknowledge the lived reality for many people in the UK.

Whilst some of recommendations made in the report are helpful, they fall far short of what could have been achieved.

While I am deeply disappointed in our government, I am not surprised given that our Prime Minster literally called Black People “piccaninnies with watermelon smiles”.

It’s sad that it needs to be repeated: racism is bad, racism exists, and it is the duty of those with power to take action to end racism.

Watford Black History Month 2020 Pub Quiz

Stream our family friendly, Watford Black History Month quiz below. See how many questions you can answer!

I was proud to support Watford Black History Month 2020. As well as co-hosting this quiz with Clive Saunders OBE, I also helped coordinate events and look after the website.

We will remember them.

Today is Remembrance Sunday- an anniversary used to remember all the people who have died in wars. 

Remembrance Day (also known as Armistice Day) will be held on 11 November and marks the day WW1 ended, at 11am on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918.

These days are an important part of our shared cultural heritage. The human cost of wars has been felt in every city, town, and village in the UK. 

Every year we remember and honour those who have sacrificed themselves to secure and protect our freedom.

In addition to remembering those lives lost to war, I have donated towards, and helped Lib Dem Councilor’s and activists in Watford put up poppies in north Watford, for 3 main reasons:

1. War exists

2. War is bad

3. We should try to avoid war

War exists

The poppies are part of Remembrance Day: a memorial day observed in the UK and across the Commonwealth to remember the members of their armed forces who have died in the line of duty.

The first remembrance days were held in the shadow of the Great War where as many as 8.5 million soldiers and 13 million civilians died.

In subsequent wars commonwealth servicemen and servicewomen continue to serve, continued to be injured and continue to die.

You may have heard the phrase “we will remember them”. That is what it is all about.

For me, remembrance is absolutely not a celebration of war, and it not about whether specific wars are just or unjust. It is simply about taking time to honour and respect the memories of all those lost.

It is an uncomfortable reminder, that war exists, and while it’s easy to be comfortable in our day to day existence, we should never be complacent.

War is bad

To me it’s quite uncontroversial to state that war is bad. 

I can accept that wars of self defence can be justified and, let’s be clear, fighting the nazi’s was absolutely righteous and a moral necessity.

But as a fundamental position, the hurt and suffering, the economic and social damage, and the trauma, from any war is bad.

After the 1950’s Korean War (in which over 100,000 British troops served) an expression became popular in the USA: “Freedom is not free”. 

There is a cost to liberty, and while we will all individually determine whether the costs are worth paying, the cost itself is bad.

We should try to avoid war

Essentially, If we want to live in peace we must work towards peace.

To quote from President John F. Kennedy’s Strategy for Peace

“Let us focus ... on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.”

Avoiding war does not require naive unilateral action, but a sustained political effort to find compromises and agreements for mutual benefit.

We owe it to the memory of those before us to avoid making the same mistakes that led to the wars in which they gave so much.

At a time of global tensions between super powers, of climate change, urbanisation, water scarcity, and rising sea levels, the risk of war will continue to grow if we do not actively try to avoid it.

It is paramount that seek out the humanity in others. We must lean into the world through international institutions. We must prioritise shared cultural understanding and the exchange of ideas.

To give the final word back to President Kennedy:

“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.”

Lockdown Locals

As we enter a second lockdown, I’m worried that local businesses will be hit hard by the reduced footfall. 2020 has been a brutal year with many challenges for many people. sometimes we might feel powerless, thrown about by the avalanche of news and generally rubbish events unfolding.

But we are not powerless. When we come together, humans can achive great things. And one great thing we can all do is support local businesses.

I’ve started a list of businesses local to where I live, who offer a collection service or delivery, with ordering online or by phone.

This list is not exhastive and will need to be continually updated as things change. If you live in north watford, please do share this list with anyone who might find it useful!

The latest government advice on coronavirus can be found at gov.uk/coronavirus.

The North Watford focus Facebook page (which I help moderate) can be found at facebook.com/NorthWatfordFocus.

I’m a local resident and a political activist, trying to make North Watford an even better place to live. If you’re interested, my Facebook page can be found at facebook.com/libdemjoe, and my blog can be found here.

We should be proud that UK foreign aid helped eradicate wild polio in Africa

At a time when the UK’s role in the world is changing and Boris Johnson is trying to minimise UK foreign aid, characterising it a 'cashpoint' in the sky some good news might have slipped past you unnoticed: Wild Polio has been eradicated from the continent of Africa, and UK foreign aid was critical to achieving this long standing humanitarian objective.

I think this news is an important reminder of the massively positive role that the UK has in the world.

We often spend time feeling guilty and critical of our colonial history. We feel under attack. And when we are under attack a very human reaction is to be defensive and to retreat. “If we’re so bad we’re going to retreat into isolationism then”.

But that would be wrong. Britain is one of the richest countries in the world and one of the most powerful. And that wealth and power came from Britain’s relationship with the rest of the world. No man is an island? No island is an island. We are connected to the rest of the world. So the question is not “do we have a relationship?”, but “what kind of relationship do we want to have?”.

Britain is full of kind and generous people: the overwhelming majority of citizens would like the world to be a better place. And that’s why we should be loudly celebrating the UK’s role in the fight against polio, now that Africa has been declared free from wild polio by the independent body, ‘The Africa Regional Certification Commission’.

Support from the UK has helped 220 million children across 47 countries in Africa. That is a big deal.

Polio usually affects children under five, sometimes leading to irreversible paralysis. Death can occur when breathing muscles are affected. Twenty-five years ago thousands of children in Africa were paralysed by the virus.

The disease is now only found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The UK is one of the top donors to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which has vaccinated millions of children against polio in the world’s poorest countries. As a result of their work more than 18 million people are able to walk who would otherwise have been paralysed by the virus.

At a time of historic change, where Britain is faced with an opportunity to decide who we want to be in the world, it is vital that we celebrate the good our country has done so that those who represent us in parliament know that we value the successes of UK aid.

I’ve written to my local MP, and I would encourage you to write to your MP to help share and promote the good news:

Dear xxx

I wanted to share my delight in hearing the news that, with considerable UK support, Africa has recently been declared free from wild polio.

This is exactly the kind of initiative that I support, and I am proud of our government’s decision to provide aid for this cause. UK Foreign aid is important and something we should continue to fund.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wild-polio-wiped-out-in-africa-with-uk-aid-support

Maximum National Maximum Trust

Celebrate our shared collective heritage and support those willing to have difficult conversations about our history by joining the national trust today!

nationaltrust.org.uk/join-us

The national trust is a fantastic organisation, and quite unique in the world being the biggest conservation charity in Europe and one of the biggest in the world.

They look after the UK’s coastline, historic sites, countryside and green spaces, ensuring everyone benefits.

On 23rd August the national trust marked the UNESCO day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition, by taking a closer look at the places they care for with direct or indirect links to slavery, including objects made from materials obtained by forced labour.

It was factual, respectful and exactly the kind of conversations we should be having. I didn’t find the thread to be judgemental but just an honest consideration of some of the darker aspects of our history.

You can read the full thread on twitter and the supporting statement on their website.

Regretfully some people were upset about this and have subsequently threatened to cancel their national trust membership.

I’m not going to focus on the mostly ignorant and occasionally hateful responses, but what I would say is this:

If you want to encourage honest and frank reflections about our nation’s links to slavery and colonialism by the national trust, then join up and write to them to let them know why. Or if membership isn’t your bag, just get in touch with the national trust to let them know you appreciate their efforts.

To remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”

Be the love. Show your support for the National Trust today!

Why I'm backing Layla

I’m backing Layla Moran to be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats - here’s why.

Empathy

Our character is built by our lived experience. As a BAME, LGBT+, woman, Layla has had experiences that help her truly empathise with others. Layla is already an inspiration to many in our party- and as leader she would have a platform to inspire many across the country.

Competence

Having had a successful career before entering parliament, Layla has real world skills that are useful in her role as an MP and will be useful as the party leader.

Intelligence

Having studied at Imperial, Brunel and UCL it is clear that Layla is highly intelligent. Frankly, there are lots of intelligent people. What makes Layla exceptional is her combination of academic intelligence with emotional intelligence.

Even in a crowded room, when Layla talks to you, it feels personal. We need a charismatic leader that will connect with the public, a new Cleggmania for 2020 (Laylageddon anyone?).

Values

Layla is a true liberal social democrat. While I, personally, often find myself to the right of the party - we need a leader that is able to bridge both our economic liberals and our social democrats. Layla is that leader.

To find out more about Layla Moran MP, her campaign to become Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and to join her campaign go to:

votelayla.org

If All Lives Mattered it wouldn’t be controversial to state that Black Lives Matter

Black lives matter and all lives matter are not mutually exclusive statements. If you genuinely believe that all lives matter then you should support the movement to end racism and treat black lives as equal to white lives.

If you disagree with the statement that black lives matter you’re denying that racism exists. The sad truth is that we currently live in a world where black lives don’t seem to matter as much as white lives.

The whole point of black lives matter is to draw attention to the discrimination and disparities faced by people of colour, to bring everyone in society together, so that together we can fight for a reality where all lives do matter equally.

Photo Credit: Reddit u/Primuri • Jun 5, 2020

Why brilliant MPs fail on national issues (in small parties)

This article focuses on the LibDems but the fundamental concepts apply to UK politics generally.

On the 6th January 2020 Daisy Cooper assumed office as a Member of Parliament for St Albans after more than a decade of local campaigning. A huge victory for the party and shows how years of determined effort can pay off.

In the coming days, MP Daisy Cooper will bring a bill to the House of Commons to “End the use of prison for women, except for the most serious and violent crimes.”

Despite being a bill by the Lib Dems- it is obviously discriminatory and illiberal: men and women should be treated equally before the law. That’s liberalism 101.

This bill, which is currently being promoted by the central party, is sure to fail. (Hopefully without a great deal of press attention). Parliamentary arithmetic is against it, and fundamentally it’s a bad bill which the government will see no reason in adopting (to steal the credit).

More importantly - party members are appalled that their party could be advocating an illiberal change to the justice system. This may well have scuppered Daisy’s chances of winning the LibDem leadership contest.

So, how did such a genuinely brilliant local MP get it so wrong on a national policy issue?

The big issue is that the skills to become an MP are different to the thought leadership required to translate liberal social democracy into a political force.

Local politics is about local issues, and MPs represent a local constituency.

Rightly or wrongly, the truth is that a prospective parliamentary candidate’s policy on bin collections will have more impact than their policy on, as in this case, sentencing guidelines for the justice system.

The LibDems are a smaller party that has to win every vote and is funded by members (rather than unions or a few wealthy individuals). 

With the big think tanks, and political institutions focusing on the big party’s (that are most likely to form a government), smaller partys have a much harder job of doing both local politics and national politics at the same time.

To be blunt - Daisy wasn’t elected for her policy positions on justice- she was elected as a representative of St Albans.

How do we stop local MPs failing on national issues?

Well for a start, MPs are individuals who the public have chosen. The answer isn’t to stop them pursuing bad ideas but to flood them with good ideas. (With Mark Pack’s election as libdem party president I‘m hopeful that the next wave of ideas will be focused on winning votes rather than having interesting but niche fringe debates).

We can examine the rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP): Scottish Nationalism is a single issue, with a simple message, that everyone in the SNP can rally behind. This makes it easier for local activists and politicians to work on local issues on the ground, yet tune into national policy when needed.

How do we “fix” the small party problem for the LibDems?

In simple terms - the party has to get bigger.

In the same way that the party is funded by its members, policy development is going to need to come from its members as well.

More members who are more engaged and active will lead to more, and better thought out, policy.

All party members have a role in this - in being friendly and welcoming. And also in trying to include new members as much as possible.

If you’re not yet a member of the Lib Dems, you can find a local party to get involved with here and join the party here.

If you are a member and/or an activist, mark pack (party president) runs a newswire here.

If you want to know the recent Lib Dem policy positions, the 2019 manifesto is here.

If you have specific ideas about policy development, get in touch with me here and I will do my best to help connect you to the right person or group.

Lastly (but not leastly) if you want to volunteer generally for the libdems, you can get in touch with the central party here.

Rail Station Accessibility: When £20 million is not a lot of money...

The government recently announced a £20m “funding boost” for accessibility across 124 rail stations.

£20 million, to most individuals, really is a lot of cash. And any additional investment in train station accessibility is good.

For many people, the rail network is extremely challenging to use.

Quite a few years ago I did some fire engineering design training*. Trying to navigate without eyesight (wearing a blind fold) is both terrifying and difficult. Not only did it change how I considered the design of a built environment, but it also gave me some appreciation of the importance of designing for accessibility. Platform tactile paving, for example, literally is a matter of life and death.

Further- The things that make stations more accessible for disabled users tend to make the stations better for all users.

For example: Lift access to platforms is fundamental for wheel chair users. Lifts are also safer and more convenient for passengers with big suitcases. And additional lifts provide additional overall capacity.

So is £20 million enough additional investment in accessibility?

It’s not clear from network rail reporting how much is currently spent on station accessibility.

If we look at £20 million in the context of network rails recent £3,577 million in annual operational costs, this doesn’t seem a lot.

Network rail only operate 20 out of the 2500(ish) UK train stations. Point being we can conclude that £20 million is a relatively modest funding boost.

If we divide £20M between the 124 stations allocated thats roughly £160k per station- which in railway terms is not a lot: For example, in a recent estimate the “Cost for the design, supply, and installation of the lift mechanisms and enclosure themselves would be in the region of £750,000 to £1.2 million.”

That would again indicate that £20 million is a relatively modest funding boost.

What can we conclude from all this?

I don’t doubt that this funding boost has good intentions. And any increase in funding is a good thing overall.

I believe that it is fair to judge the success of a train station on how accessible it is for the least mobile in society.

Generally, UK train stations could be a lot better and I would argue that £20 million is inadequate to make a big difference. And for me, a big difference is exactly what is required.

What else have I missed?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this. Please do leave a comment below, or message me directly.

P.S.

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it. And as ever, if you think I might be able to help your organisation, please do get in touch!

---

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING:

• News post on gov.uk by the Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rail-stations-across-great-britain-receive-20-million-funding-boost-for-accessibility-improvements

• Network Rail Limited Annual report and accounts 2019 - https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Annual-report-and-accounts-2019.pdf

• Estimated cost of a passenger lift at a railway station: EIR release - https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-18-03026/

---

*This experience had a tremendous and lasting impact on me. Some of the first-hand accounts from former firemen reduced the room to tears.

The next high-speed rail boom?

When we think of railways in Africa, we might imagine gigantic post-colonial steam trains, bouncing along old rickety tracks in clouds of dust, steam and smoke.

Image Credit John Gaydon

Yet Morocco is smashing that picture, operating a successful, modern, high speed railway.

Africa’s first high speed rail line, running from Tangier to Rabat, has just recently celebrated its first anniversary. And Morocco’s national operator, Office National des Chemins de Fer (ONCF), have plans to extend the rail network to 20 cities and 14 airports by 2040.

Both Egypt and South Africa have plans in place for new high-speed rail routes. And all across the South-Asia Pacific there are high-speed rail projects.

So, are we seeing the start of a high-speed rail boom? To answer this question, we need to look at some context.

A brief history of railways (and high speed railways in particular)

Railways were pioneered in the UK, during the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century. The age of steam shrank the world with railways connecting not just British towns and cities but quickly being rolled out across the British empire, and within other industrialised nations.

During the first half of the 20th century we saw massive growth of passenger use, and a transition from steam to diesel and electrically powered locomotives.

Through the second half of the 20th century we saw a diversification of rail use. Some countries, many of those that pioneered rail use originally, saw the gradual replacement of railways with planes and cars. Railways were still in use, but typically with diminished budgets and a general approach of ‘managed decline’.

Notably, countries with large geographies like the USA, Australia, Kenya and Tanzania started using rail for efficiently moving freight rather than slowly moving passengers. Los Angeles to New York takes roughly 5 hours by plane or 3.5 days by train.

Meanwhile countries with more suitable geographies, and governments willing to invest, started building dedicated high-speed passenger railways. This is especially useful for connecting city centre to city centre (avoiding the hassle of getting to/from the airport).

France and Japan took the lead in this area, eventually competing with each other to build faster and faster high-speed trains.

Around the turn of the century, up to today, more countries began investing in high speed railways. With a steady development of high-speed rail projects across most of Europe and China.

Today we see plans for high speed rail projects across the Middle East, and with wavering commitment across the South Asia Pacific and each coast of the USA.

Railways in Africa

Which brings us back to the ‘Al Boraq’ high speed railway in Morocco. Connecting the Northern Port of Tangier with the capital, Rabat, and the main commercial hub of Casablanca.

The Al Boraq project started in 2011, with help from the French state through SNCF. French built TGV trains reach 186mph (300kph) along the 225 mile (360km) journey and take 2 hours and 10 minutes end to end.

The initial cost of construction, and cost of future renewals are met by financing, with project funding comprised of Direct investment from the Moroccan government, French led European investment, and commercial loans.

Income from rail fares are currently enough to cover cost of operations and maintenance.

The bet is that the overall investment will lead to growth in overall productivity in Morocco. This will lead to increases in tax receipts, with the difference being larger than the costs of servicing the investment loans.

Economies are complicated systems dependant on many factors, but all things being equal it is a fair assumption that improvements in infrastructure will lead to improvements in economic development. And historically, there are clear examples of railways having a hugely positive economic and social impact.

The start of a boom?

The Al Boraq project has been successful (so far): daily Passenger numbers on the route have increased from roughly 7,500 up to 10,500 per day and this seems set to continue. So given this success, it seems probably that Morocco will continue to invest in high speed rail.

More generally, we are living in an age where interest rates are low, debt is cheap, and traditional “low risk” financial assets, like government bonds, are offering poor returns for investors.

Image Credit Paul Schmelzing, Bank of England

Government backed infrastructure projects offer a win-win for both government and financial investors – where government backing reduces risk for investors, the debt affordability reduces risk for government, and infrastructure utilisation offers stable returns for all.

The countries who pioneers the development of high-speed rail are growing close to saturation. There are, after all, only so many cities that can be connected. As Ashley Barratt asked recently, “is the west reaching peak infrastructure?”

Such countries are looking to exploit their knowledge advantage, and keep these engineers employed. Nearly all western rail infrastructure managers have subsidiaries to export services. The UK’s Network Rail has ‘Network Rail Consulting’. France’s SNCF has ‘SNCF International’. And so on.

If you add all of this together, then yes we could well be seeing the start of the next high-speed railway boom.

What else have I missed?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this. Please do leave a comment below, or message me directly.

P.S.

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it. And as ever, if you think I might be able to help your organisation, please do get in touch!

---

References and further reading:

ONCF, 2020 - https://www.oncf.ma/fr/Entreprise/Profil-de-l-oncf/Historique

JOHN GAYDON, 2017 - https://steamtrainstories.com/author/john-gaydon/

Groupe_oncf, 2020 - https://www.instagram.com/p/B2C3nn-Bgq9/

Paul Schmelzing, Bank of England, 2020 - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2020/eight-centuries-of-global-real-interest-rates-r-g-and-the-suprasecular-decline-1311-2018

SNCF International - https://www.sncf.com/en/sncf-around-the-world

Tech, Infrastructure and the Future

It’s often premised that Tech companies are going to change the world, and this includes disrupting how we will build, maintain, replace and dispose of infrastructure.

This article is about why tech companies are probably not going to disrupt infrastructure management directly. And how tech is going to indirectly impact the infrastructure management industry.

TL;DR -

1. Don’t expect google (et al) to be putting any asset management and engineering consultancies out of business any time soon.

2. Do expect the role of asset management and engineering consultancies to change.

Firstly, let’s define what a tech company actually is

A ‘tech company’ (to me at least) is a company that uses technology to disrupt an existing market, with products that, once built, have a very low additional cost for each additional paying customer. This is often called a “zero marginal cost” model.

Tech companies are often funded by venture capitalists, betting that their upfront investment will deliver zero margin, and therefor practically unlimited, returns.

Herein lies the first massive difference between the tech world and the infrastructure world:

In infrastructure, initial investment is defined by the construction (once a bridge is built it is built). Returns are limited by the physical infrastructure (a train can only fit so many passengers).

In tech, initial investment is undefined. Lean software development has led to a world where it’s basically impossible to say a product is “finished”. But, importantly, returns are unlimited.

To take google search as an example, the costs associated with an additional user searching on google are thousandths of a cent (we can consider close to zero) - whereas the commission revenue from each user searching is measured in dollars per day. Given the capture of search by google, returns are limited only by how many billion people are using the internet, and how much of the rest of the economy is online. However you cut it, the initial investors in google have made monumental returns.

So, tech favours agile rapid development to quickly iterate between solutions, with massive rewards for finding zero-margin products and services.

In tech there are few prizes for perfecting a product before you’ve proven it has a market. Competition is fierce so it’s all about racing through iterations until you find those zero-margin returns.

As Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg put it:

“Move fast and break things”

Which, is about as far as you can get from infrastructure management, where the equivalent expression would probably be:

“Move at a reasonable pace and absolutely do not break anything, ever”

If a web search calculation is wrong, you might have an inconvenient couple of hours of inefficient searching. “Why can’t I find the website I’m looking for?”

If a train signalling calculation is wrong you might end up with a massive train crash, with loss of life, massive costs, and potentially jail time for company directors.

So, the typical use of technology in infrastructure management has high consequences and constrained returns. Or in other words, exactly the wrong model to interest tech companies (or tech investors).

So, how might tech influence infrastructure management?

To answer this, let’s look at the fundamental paradigm shifts in technology over the last 50 years:

Big shift 1) moving from mainframes to personal computers.

Big shift 2) moving from desktop applications (on personal computers) to the internet, with virtual servers running almost unlimited computational power on demand.

Big shift 3) moving from the internet accessed on desktop computers to laptops, then to PDAs then to mobile phones (and fridges and home sound systems). Ubiquitous internet!

And if we overlay how this has impacted infrastructure management:

Big shift 1) moving from huge teams of engineers and technicians transforming calculations or records to feed into mainframes, to small teams or individuals using personal computers in an office.

Big shift 2) moving from desktop applications with engineers feeding data into personal computers and worrying about storing and using data locally, to feeding internet connected systems with virtual servers making information shareable and retrievable around the world.

Also within shift 2 - the scope and scale of Calculations has become virtually unlimited accessing almost unlimited computational power on demand.

Big shift 3) moving from manual data entry based on desktop computers to the “Internet of Things” and/or “Smart Infrastructure” where humans provide assurance that the assets are monitoring themselves correctly.

We, in the infrastructure management community, are currently living in shift 3, while the tech companies are busy working on the next shift. (how about ubiquitous internet implanted directly into your brain?)

So if tech companies aren’t going to directly enter the infrastructure advisory business...

...then where next for tech in infrastructure management?

Well, as a general observation big shifts don’t happen suddenly, we just suddenly realise the shift has happened. While tech PR would have you believe that their next product is going to change everything, actually it is adoption that changes things.

I’m reminded of a joke I first heard at a seminar by Dr Hillson:

3 frogs are sat on a log.

1 of the Frogs decides to jump off the log.

How many frogs are on the log?

3 frogs are sat on the log.

Saying something is not the same as doing something.

Point being, In these predictions I’ve tried to ignore product hype and focus instead on what’s being adopted in the real world.

Prediction 1

And so, my first prediction would be that we remain on a steady trajectory- that is, there won’t be a revolutionary change but a continuing evolution.

Ubiquitous internet, and the expected deployment of 5G, will lead to more “smart infrastructure” and remote monitoring of assets.

The cost of remote monitoring is likely to continue to drop, widening the portfolio of assets for which there is a business case for connecting to the internet.

The increased bandwidth offered by 5G will allow for more data to be collected and transmitted.

Highly criticality assets will be able to provide real time condition monitoring and real time capacity utilisation monitoring.

If you want to label it, we could call this the digitisation of reliability centred maintenance.

Prediction 2

Automation and Machine Learning will continue to increase the general efficiency of people who work in infrastructure management.

The define what I mean by automation and machine learning- it’s simply training a computer how to recognise certain inputs and provide a prescribed output.

In basic systems engineering we often breaks things down into an INPUT, PROCESS, OUTPUT model.

Well automation and machine learning is just where we’ve massively increased the input data, and used some more complex maths in the process, so that we get better and more reliable outputs.

Take for example a thermostat. Traditional thermostat took inputs of target temperature and current temperature. If it’s too hot, the output is to turn off the heating. If it’s too cold, the output is to turn on the heating.

Well, a “smart” thermostat (like nest, although other products are available) might use much more input data, like what temperature do you want the room when occupied, or when empty. Add some sensors so it knows when the room is occupied and it will vary the temperature accordingly. Add a time series and it can start to predict what temperature the room should be based on when it thinks the room is likely to be occupied and when the room is likely to become empty.

In this way a “smart” thermostat can reduce energy use as the heating is only switched on when it’s needed. And the possibilities go on- is it really hot? Probably a fire. Is it really cold? Probably a Window open. Is the room occupied at a weird time? Maybe let the owner know in case its someone who shouldn’t be in that room. And so on.

The point is- In the same way that we now have shared digital calendars as standard for pretty much every aspect of every job, we’ll start to see automation and machine learning tools permeate into the workplace as well.

Let’s call this a machine shift.

Prediction 3

So combining prediction 1 (digitisation of reliability centred maintenance) with prediction 2 (machine shift) we get to prediction 3: that effort in infrastructure management will change most dramatically in two main areas, assurance and innovation.

Staff who currently inspect infrastructure directly will, over time, instead be providing assurance that the “smart infrastructure” is functioning correctly. Inspection staff will also provide a ‘validation’ that the condition reported by system is the same as the condition in real life.

And similarly, staff who renew or build infrastructure (in both design and delivery) will over time be more preoccupied with working out how to deploy smarter infrastructure.

An impact of this will likely be fewer inspections (with an associated drop in workplace injuries). From looking at the impact of reliability centred maintenance generally, we would also expect to see improved performance and reduced uncertainty.

We will also likely see greater infrastructure complexity. This may in turn impact upfront cost as well as increase project risk – given that more complex projects have more opportunity for error.

What have I missed?

I’ve limited this article to 3 predictions, and I know I’ve missed a lot. Big things I’ve missed are:

Green Shift - the impact of the drive for environmental sustainability. Probably a continued reduction of energy and material use, as well as a switch from carbon to green forms of energy.

Working Practices - social trends for flexible working and reduced working hours. We once thought that when the robots did all the work, the humans could live in a form of utopia. Well the robots are owned by some of the people and those people don’t seem to be that keen on distributing the wealth those robots are generating…

What else have I missed?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on all of this. Please do leave a comment below, or message me directly.

P.S.

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it.

If you look after physical assets, I would love to help your organisation get the best from tech. Please do get in touch!

We need to talk about asset management

Any organisation that is responsible for physical assets would benefit from a joined-up approach to the overall system by which those assets are looked after.

As previously discussed there is a distinction between managing assets (the things you do to assets) and asset management (the overall system by which an organisation achieves its strategic objectives through it’s assets).

Yet in too many minds- asset management is only the concern of engineers and maintenance staff.

If we want to improve this, we need to find ways to teach people who don’t ‘manage assets’ about asset management, why asset management is important, and how they’re connected to asset management.

This article lists out a coupe of tips for having conversations about asset management. It’s not in any way exhaustive, so please do comment with your own suggestions below.

1. Start with a Smile

Everybody is human, so connecting on a human level is going to be a good place to start. If you want to land any message, you want the other party to want to listen.

If you’re negative people will switch off and disconnect.

If you’re positive, sincere and passionate, people will be much more ready to listen to what you have to say.

2. Be respectful of the other person - are they available?

Building on the first point, if you want someone to listen, they need to be available to hear you.

Imagine the situation: you’re in a lift, on your own, waiting to go up to the office floor where you work. The Chief Financial Officer gets in. He knows everything there is to know about finance, but has never really connected with asset management. Sounds like this is time for your perfectly rehearsed “elevator pitch”.

But wait! Before launching into the benefits of asset management, you absolutely must check they are ready to listen. “How are you” goes a long way. For all you know they might have had the worst day imaginable. Likewise, they might have had the best day. And that should absolutely impact how you talk to them about asset management, if you should at all.

3. Avoid acronyms

What is the point of an acronym?

At their best they save you a few tenths of a second. And being charitable, if other people know the acronym, using them like a shared secret code can bring you together.

But that highlights when acronyms are at their worst. Acronyms are exclusive terms that hinder communication. They create a form of secret club for ‘people in the know’. Worse still, they make less confident people feel stupid for having to ask you what they mean.

Generally using acronyms is a way of demonstrating knowledge. A better way of demonstrating knowledge is talking in plain language and being understood.

The other reason why acronyms can be unhelpful is that they can lead to confusion.

I remember once talking to someone for at least an hour about “RCM”, before we realised, they were talking about “remote condition monitoring”, and I was talking about “reliability centred maintenance”.

We’re all human and it’s not the end of the world to use the occasional acronym. Generally though, acronyms aren’t going to help you spread asset management concepts to non-asset managers.

4. Don’t assume knowledge

Which neatly leads to the next point about assumed knowledge. It’s quite normal to use our own frame of reference and our own personal experiences, to construct explanations of concepts.

As with acronyms, if people don’t have your reference point, they might feel too embarrassed to ask, or just generally switch off from the conversation.

5. Talk about things that matter to both of you

So aside from things to avoid, what should you talk about? Ideally you want to find things that overlap between your interest and theirs.

In great organisations there will be overall strategic objectives that unite the whole organisation. If you’ve successfully developed Asset Management Objectives, that align to the overall organisations strategic objectives, then this can be a good place to find common ground.

6. Use practical examples

Quite often the things that matter to both of you will lead to a practical example to do with your work. Even if they don’t, you can usually find examples outside of work.

For example, I often talk about a garden fence when explaining the concept of whole life cost. I might pose the question “is it cheaper to paint the fence every year, or let it rot and rebuild it?”

Why all this is important

Ultimately, good asset management saves money, increases production and reduces risk. If we believe that asset management is good, we should want to share the knowledge and practices of asset management far and wide.

---

If you enjoyed this article, the best compliment you could give me would be to share it with someone else who might like it.

And please do comment below with your tips for talking about asset management.

Please do get in touch if your organisation needs help with asset management training!

Labour spin on the NHS

I saw the above misinformation floating around on Facebook and felt compelled to respond…

What’s with that headline? I thought the Lib Dems were pro NHS?

Put simply: Labour spin doctors are trying to portray the Lib Dem’s as enablers of Tory privatisation of the NHS. This is Labour treating the NHS as a political football. And while the Labour position is clearly BS (as I’ll go on to explain below), in fairness to Labour, this is just politicians doing politics. The Lib Dems want to capitalise on their simple pro remain position vs Labour‘s unclear Brexit mess. 

And likewise Labour want to distract from their internal split over Brexit by focusing attention on a simple anti-privatisation of the NHS message. Even more so if they can attack the Lib Dems who are currently polling in second place (behind the conservatives and ahead of labour and the Brexit party. [2]

So what actually just happened?

Basically Labour want to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 which devolved funding from large centralised NHS Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities to more local Clinical Commissioning Groups (run by GPs).

The act in itself is not about “privatising the NHS” but about moving decision making around spending NHS money closer to the front line staff and their patients.

The act does not provide for any parts of the NHS to be sold off or privatised and actually preserves the commitment for NHS services to be free at the point of use.

Furthermore, the service tendering processes were made more rigorous in the new structure- making private sector involvement more transparent and more efficient [1].

It is really important to emphasise here- the Lib Dem position has been really clear for a very long time on this: the Lib Dems want to raise taxes to provide more money for the NHS, to expand mental health services, and are committed to ensuring the NHS remains free at the point of use.

So did the Lib Dem’s vote for this bill in 2012?

Yes - one of the core Lib Dem values is community. Lib Dems believe that Humans are better when they work together and that local people should have a say in things that effect them.

To repeat - the act is not about privatisation, but about localism.

The current Labour leadership’s default position is that of left wing socialism. They think that, as a rule, private enterprise is bad, people can’t be trusted, and more central government is good. To be reductionist: ‘the government should control every aspect of your life’.

To be fair to Labour, they believe that the act could make privatisation easier in future, so they want to repeal it. To be fair to reality- the Original Act has not ended a publicly funded and administered NHS.

So why don’t the Lib Dems want to repeal the act?

Aside from the ideological differences between Labour wanting a central government controlled NHS and the Lib Dems wanting locally controlled services, repealing the act would have required a massive reorganisation of the NHS. 

This would have resulted in a monumentally expensive exercise without a clear goal. The repeal proposal wouldn’t have given any direction or plan, and so the changes required would have had to be worked out and delivered by NHS managers who, to be honest, aren’t exactly sat around with nothing better to be doing.

But then, the repeal proposal wasn’t expected to pass, it was purely political for the purposes of trying to create negative PR for the Lib Dems, who are in the process of overtaking Labour to become the second most popular party in the UK (after the Conservatives) [2].

A much better proposal would have been to table a new bill to guarantee that NHS services will always remain free at the point of use. Within this, there would be room for a sensible conversation about the amount of privatisation that is acceptable [1]. Rather than point scoring, I’d much rather the parties were working together. Regretfully in the context of a Tory hard Brexit, a labour soft Brexit and Lib Dem remain, I can’t see much chance of the parties working together for a long long while. Sorry to end on a bummer!

Notes

[1] To be very clear- to remove all private business from the provision of healthcare in the UK we would need to have a global socialist revolution, where governments take over all the things, like; all manufacturing of pharmaceuticals; all production of non pharmaceutical medical products like bandages, bed sheets, cleaning products and prosthetics etc; all food production and nutritional supplement production for patients; all logistics and distribution for moving items around; providing the enormous upfront capital investment for drugs research, development, testing and approvals process etc etc. 

At some point the NHS has to interact with private businesses. Even if Labour had the mandate to nationalise all the things in the UK, the rest of the world would need to do the same. The question is not should private companies have anything to do with healthcare. The question is to what extent and within which regulatory framework should private companies interact with the NHS. 

The labour position is wilfully nieve and cynical to try to win votes by misrepresenting truth. The Lib Dem position is nuanced and complex making it difficult to explain to voters. Still, both positions are better than the Tory’s who are just straight up lying about the NHS (big red bus anyone?).

[2] lots of opinion and voting intention polls have shown the Lib Dems to have overtaken or come close to overtaking Labour. It’s been well known for decades that when voters pick policies they prefer, without knowing the party, the majority pick Lib Dem.

Quite literally the majority of the population would vote Lib Dem: https://youtu.be/d5455K_PzA8. 

Recent opinion poll article:

 https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/liberal-democrats/news/106641/lib-dems-leapfrog-labour-second-place-after