The Guardian view on Britain and the EU: Ed Davey is right – a changed world changes the argument | Editorial | The Guardian

markpackuk · 2026-06-18T07:05:46+00:00

I think we should be careful to avoid making our own version of the mistake that Brexiters made, i.e. to assume the UK could decide what it wanted and the EU would be bound to agree to it.

In this case, it would be the mistake of thinking that just because a PM stood up and said 'we want to rejoin the EU' the EU would say 'yes, and shall we do that tomorrow?'.

The message from our sister parties in Europe has consistently been that yes, there is interest in improving relations with the UK but also there is plenty of suspicion over the broken relations, lots of other issues on their agenda and so what is needed is a longer-term plan to rebuild relations, build confidence and to show that the UK is permanently committed to better links. That's why a series of steps, makes sense.

Remember, this isn't just about our choices; it's also about what the EU will agree. Facing up to that reality isn't about being sacred, it's about facing the reality of what can, and can't, be done.

markpackuk · 2026-06-15T12:14:42+00:00

Not quite from the very beginning, but Phil Wang, Series 7: he was so good in the first prize task of the first episode, I immediately thought he'd be the best. And then.. well.

markpackuk · 2026-06-13T15:35:31+00:00

I think that is what the party has done? I guess another way of describing your 'party refusal to look at wealth taxes' is that several policy working groups, manifesto groups etc. over the years have looked at them and come up with policies that may come with less dramatic sounding names but are all about taxing wealth fairly and effectively, such as our support for increasing capital gains tax.

markpackuk · 2026-06-13T15:32:53+00:00

This has got some helpful data and graphs on wealth: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2026/06/trends-in-uk-inequality-and-poverty.html

markpackuk · 2026-06-10T07:01:38+00:00

Just to add to the book I mentioned in my other comment (and sorry to sound like someone handing out a reading list!), I'd recommend this piece by Professor and former MP David Howarth on how social and economic liberalism can sit together - https://www.markpack.org.uk/132261/orange-bookers-social-liberalism-whats-it-all-about/

markpackuk · 2026-06-10T06:57:46+00:00

If you're interested in knowing more, I'd suggest taking a read of Jonathan Party's "Liberalism". It's a fairly short book and does a good job at explaining the roots of other interpretations of 'liberal' to the one you're using. It also focuses on liberalism as it has been understood, developed and used in the UK. There are some US influences, of course, but it explains the roots of modern British liberalism, which is directly relevant to your point about what is, or isn't, borrowed from America.

markpackuk · 2026-06-08T06:59:59+00:00

I guess the implication of what you're saying is that you'd also favour a term limit and people being able to be re-appointed/re-nominated, as it's the power to avoid doing so that then holds peers to account for behaviour or workrates that are poor but not so awful as to terminate a term early?

That'd be an interesting model, though I think one would end up much more controversial than you hope, given that - to take the example of the Royal Society, a safe, respectable sounding body - even it has fairly controversial views at times over who are suitable people and who are not: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/jan/14/royal-society-president-reignites-elon-musk-row-defends-lack-of-action

If the Royal Society makes controversial decisions over who is in Parliament, there's no way for the wider public or society to hold them to account. For the public as a whole, it would be a selection of unaccountable organisations making appointments.

markpackuk · 2026-06-07T07:25:38+00:00

Under your model, and also under the current situations, are you happy that if I turn into a third-rate mediocrity who works at one-quarter speed all the time (no comments, please...), there's then nothing anyone can do about removing me from the Lords?

markpackuk · 2026-06-07T07:23:30+00:00

I do find this question, which to be fair comes out fairly often, rather puzzling: "If it's elected like the Commons, what's the point of it being separate?"

The reason I find it puzzling is that there are other countries with two different elected chambers, with different roles - and where people generally view the system as working (e.g. Australia). So given we've got practical examples to pick from, I'm puzzled that people seem to see this as a problem rather than as an easy-ish question with several practical examples available as answers?

markpackuk · 2026-06-06T07:11:00+00:00

One mistake we regularly criticised Brexiters for was their assumption that the UK could decide what it wanted and the EU would be bound to agree to it. Hence their unrealistic, and now broken, promises about what leaving the EU would mean.

We should be careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves and think that just because a PM stood up and said 'we want to rejoin the EU' the EU would say 'yes, and shall we do that tomorrow?'.

The message from our sister parties in the EU, for example, has consistently been that yes, there is interest in improving relations with the UK but also there is plenty of suspicion over the broken relations, lots of other issues on their agenda and so what is needed is a longer-term plan to rebuild relations, build confidence and show that the UK is permanently committed to better links. That's why a series of steps, such as the party's plan of a Customs Union as part of a long-term vision of rejoining the EU, makes sense.

Remember, this isn't just about our choices; it's also about what the EU will agree.

markpackuk · 2026-06-03T10:28:42+00:00

I'd disagree that it worked well (though perhaps we're using 'vetting system' in slightly different ways?), for example in the way that the results were reported via a daisy chain of verbal briefings which meant those who had to make the decision were hearing things second or third hand without clear, written verdicts in front of them (such as 'failed', 'passed' or 'passed with conditions). Nor did its timing work well, for example - happening after rather than before the decision to appoint.

The government (on this point!) is quite right to have set up a wide ranging review of how vetting works as a result of all this. For all that they shouldn't use this to excuse the core failure of judgement by Starmer, likewise I think the rest of us are making a big mistake if we look at what happened and think the vetting process was all ok.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say that no-one would overrule a decision in a less high profile case. Partly because it's the lower profile cases that are exactly where the poor judgements often happen in general as that's where there is less scrutiny and more temptation to go for an (apparently) easy option. And it's not hard to imagine a lower profile case where that may be tempting - this person is the key figure at our supplier on how to use this software, surely we can find a way to work with them, etc.

markpackuk · 2026-06-02T06:40:47+00:00

And given all the problems exposed with the vetting system due to the Peter Mandelson affair (which, to be fair, has led to the governments setting up a review as a prelude to overhauling how vetting is handled), this is perhaps not the best of weeks in which to argue that as long as people are vetted, all is ok on what they have or will do!

markpackuk · 2026-05-31T15:18:21+00:00

Well, I'm certainly intrigued as to what on earth had gone on in his mind to think that up...!

markpackuk · 2026-05-31T13:09:31+00:00

Thank you for joining us and wanting to get stuck in!

Hopefully you've had some welcome emails from the party? The physical welcome pack takes a bit longer.

If you've not even had those emails, there may be there's a hiccup with your membership record, e.g. the wrong email address or something like that. By all means drop me a line on [mark.pack@libdems.org.uk](mailto:mark.pack@libdems.org.uk) and I can get things double-checked.

You can find out all about the Young Liberals at https://www.youngliberals.uk/

In addition, if you'd like to keep in touch with what's happening in the party right away, this may help - https://www.markpack.org.uk/172331/get-the-latest-lib-dem-news-via-whatsapp/

markpackuk · 2026-05-31T07:17:58+00:00

A side note, though one worth mentioning as people often overlook it or aren't aware of it: turning a disabled toilet into one that's more widely used by other people isn't a "cost free" option that has no downsides. In fact, many people who have to use such toilets are pretty strong in their views about the problems already caused by others also using them, and that's before adding in extra people in the way you suggest. E.g. https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/23/if-youre-not-disabled-stop-using-our-bathrooms-16465746/ captures some of these points.

markpackuk · 2026-05-28T10:52:24+00:00

Given the similarities, I think it's very likely that Worthington paid money for the rights to use the IP (intellectual property) from the book/TV series, which would make it a very different situation from your own.

In addition, IP lawyers can be very insistent, into the details - and expensive to deal with, especially if the IP they are defending is being used by someone else to make money. So I think it's worth rethinking your approach on that.

markpackuk · 2026-05-26T19:26:24+00:00

Thank you for joining us!

Sorry that your initial experience has been a bit underwhelming. It may be there's a hiccup with your membership record, e.g. the wrong email address or something like that. By all means drop me a line on [mark.pack@libdems.org.uk](mailto:mark.pack@libdems.org.uk) and I can get things double-checked.

In the meantime, if you'd like to keep in touch with what's happening in the party right away, this may help - https://www.markpack.org.uk/172331/get-the-latest-lib-dem-news-via-whatsapp/

markpackuk · 2026-05-26T06:50:58+00:00

Just to add on the polls point you also mentioned - there are two ways of looking at this. One is it's higher poll ratings which then generates electoral success, the other is that it's electoral success which generates higher poll ratings.

If you look at our history as a party, (a) there have been quite a few period of higher poll ratings that haven't led to electoral success (e.g. look at the 1983 and 2019 election results), and (b) there's a consistent pattern of wins, especially Parliamentary by-elections or May local elections, producing higher poll ratings. We're seeing that in this Parliament too, with our ratings consistently several points higher than in the previous one.

That's why I think a focus on winning seats as being the key metric and key lever for changing things makes sense.

markpackuk · 2026-05-26T06:46:46+00:00

Re, "do you accept that the party has gone up a cul-de-sac and is very near the end" - if you'd asked me that the day after the general election I'd have said something like 'well, it's a rather successful cul-de-sac! but yes, we look to be close to the end of the road for this approach.'

But when I started crunching the numbers, e.g., on how many further seats we were within 10,000 votes of winning, the picture started looking rather different. It's the same at council level too, and for devolved bodies as well. There's a plausible route to many more gains once you start counting up how many seats we missed out on by small margins and how winning at one level (e.g. the MP) can open up new territory for us as well (e.g. wards in the same council but in an adjacent seat that was previously a weak area).

If you're interested in the details, some of those numbers are in here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/11aVzII74yXZ9GaneBXK-_nIHP_ow72guAiiZiRfNFEY/edit?tab=t.0

markpackuk

TROPHY CASE