Write for us!
I want to begin by thanking the drafters for the time and effort that has clearly gone into this document. A huge amount of ground is covered, and there is much within it that is thoughtful and well-intentioned.
However, I want to raise a handful of issues where the draft diverges from the liberalism I support.
Gladstone put it well: “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” Churchill was equally clear: “Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man.”
I believe in a liberalism of trusting the individual, of decentralising authority, of responsible government, and of common sense.
Unconscious bias training is illiberal
On trusting the individual, the proposal for comprehensive unconscious bias training for all government officials and police forces is a direct assault. It starts from distrust. It is regulatory symbolism. The claim that it is prudent because it reduces harm runs into a basic problem: the evidence does not support it. Systematic reviews, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s own assessment and more recent analyses, show that while such training can raise short-term awareness, it has little to no reliable effect on actual behaviour. Knowing something is not the same as changing how people act. Mandating an intervention that fails this test is the opposite of responsible government.
The state does not need another reason to intervene in businesses
The four-day working week proposal carries the same implication of superior central knowledge. It suggests that government knows better than businesses what working patterns suit their particular circumstances. We already have flexible working legislation, strengthened under the current Parliament, which rightly places more authority with the individual to request changes. That is the liberal approach. “Incentives” raise further questions. In our present fiscal position, with debt interest already so high, what form of financial incentive is realistic? And if the incentive is non-financial, it begins to look like pressure on those businesses and workers who remain content with a five-day week — even though employees already have the right to request a four-day arrangement.
Local housing is a local matter
Decentralisation of power and trust in local communities must be a consistent principle, not one applied only when the outcomes are convenient. National housebuilding targets are an exercise in centralised authority, forcing construction onto areas that may have legitimate local reasons for opposing it. Local authorities should be granted greater control in this sphere, and national targets should be abandoned. The need for more homes is real, but it must be addressed through both supply and demand. Demand matters.
The rights of immigrants and existing residents need to be balanced
That brings me directly to immigration. High house prices and rents already deprive people of disposable income in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Liberalism should help people achieve what they reasonably desire — more money to socialise, the ability to have the child they currently cannot afford, the freedom to use water without constant restriction. Hosepipe bans and strained infrastructure are not abstract; they are the cumulative result of allowing population growth to outpace housing and the services around it. Too much of the debate focuses solely on the migrants themselves and too little on the death by a thousand cuts experienced by those already here — including the sight of migrants housed in hotels while homeless people remain on the streets. Trust in the system has been eroded because it has been taken advantage of. The party should be supporting the harder-edged approach being taken by Home Secretary Mahmood rather than moving in the opposite direction.
Women’s rights cannot be sidelined
Finally, the proposal to reform the Gender Recognition Act to allow self-identification lacks both common sense and a proper evidence base. There is a clear conflict between what some trans individuals feel entitled to and the harms that flow to women. Following Mill’s utilitarianism, when rights collide the decision must rest on what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. That greater number are those born female. The scale of potential harm across single-sex spaces, fairness in sport, safeguarding, and data integrity is substantial. This is not a position grounded in liberalism; it is one that has been advanced by ideologues.
A few missteps do not undermine a thoughtful document
These are critiques of only a handful of policies within a much larger document. There is much good in the draft, and many areas on which I pass no judgement because I lack sufficient knowledge. On the points above, however, I hope the policies will be altered in the name of trusting the individual, decentralising authority, responsible government, and common sense.
