Category » Articles

National Liberal Trade Unionists – Marking The Centenary Of The 1926 UK General Strike (Part 1)

Stanley Baldwin (above left) was the Conservative Prime Minister during the period of the 1926 UK General Strike. Sir Herbert Samuel (above right) chaired the Royal Commission which looked into the coal industry.
Picture credits can be found under our article.

THE GENERAL STRIKE of 1926 was the only general strike in UK history. It took place from 4th to 12th May 1926 (nine days) and involved around 1.5 – 1.75 million workers. (However, it’s been estimated that – by the end of the strike – up to three million or more had downed tools in solidarity with the coal miners.)

The strike was called by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in support of over a million coal miners who had been locked out by mine owners. Key sectors like transport, heavy industry, printing, docks, electricity, and gas joined the strike. It remains one of the largest coordinated labour-related actions in UK history.

BACKGROUND & CAUSES

So, what was the background to (and causes of) this massive & unprecedented industrial unrest? The strike originated in the declining British coal mining industry, which faced severe post-World War I challenges. They included:

WWI factor: During the war, coal mines operated at high intensity (often under government control). This depleted reserves while demand was artificially high.
Declining demand and exports: Post-war, Britain’s coal faced competition from oil and other fuels. For instance, the Royal Navy shifted from coal to oil. This reduced domestic demand. Coal exports had also fallen.
Foreign Competition: As we noted above, wartime production had depleted reserves, and intense foreign competition grew (from Germany, Poland, and the US). Cheaper coal from reparations deals (Germany supplied free coal to France and Italy under the Treaty of Versailles) was also available.
Post-war slump: British mine owners were slow to modernise compared to competitors, and the industry was fragmented with many inefficient pits. The result was high unemployment with falling prices hitting the industry hard.

These factors led to lower production, falling prices, and profitability pressures. Mine owners sought to cut costs mainly by reducing wages and increasing working hours, while miners faced already tough conditions (dangerous work & poor pay).

During the war, the mines had been nationalised. However, they returned to private ownership in 1921. This only heightened tensions. Earlier disputes in 1921 and a near-strike in 1925 (sometimes known as ‘Red Friday’) showed how volatile the situation was.

1925 TENSIONS

As we noted earlier, the mine owners sought to reduce wages whilst instituting longer working hours. (They demanded longer working hours (from 7 to 8 hours) and significant pay cuts, varying by region.)

The government under Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin (1867 – 1947) provided a temporary nine-month subsidy to maintain wages and avoid an immediate strike.

A Royal Commission (Samuel Commission, chaired by Sir Herbert Samuel, who later became leader of the Liberal Party) was appointed to investigate the industry.

It reported in March 1926. It recommended reorganising the industry (via amalgamations), nationalising royalties, and — crucially — a 13–13.5% wage reduction plus ending the government subsidy. The Commission didn’t fully endorse owners’ demands but gave them leverage.

The mine owners, seemingly emboldened by the Samuel Commission, demanded significant pay cuts, an eight-hour day (up from seven), and district-level agreements (which could worsen variations). They rejected national negotiations.

WAGE REDUCTIONS & LONGER WORKING HOURS

It should come as no surprise that the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (the forerunner to the National Union of Mineworkers – NUM) opposed the idea of wage reductions alongside longer working hours. Indeed, the MFGB coined the famous slogan “Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day.”

On 1st May 1926, owners locked out over one million miners when they refused the new terms. Negotiations between the TUC, government, and owners broke down (partly exacerbated by incidents like printers refusing to print an anti-strike article in the Daily Mail).

The Trades Union Congress (TUC), representing broader unions, supported the miners and called for a general strike in solidarity to begin at one minute to midnight on 3rd May.

THE STRIKE

The TUC viewed the miners’ fight as a test case for the broader labour movement. They called the strike not as a revolutionary move but to force the government to intervene and prevent wage cuts spreading across industries. It was framed as solidarity against an attack on workers’ living standards amid high unemployment and economic hardship in the 1920s.

TUC involvement saw many other key industrial sectors involved in the dispute. They included:

Transport (railways, docks, road transport)
Heavy industry (iron, steel, electricity, gas)
Printing and other essential services

The strike brought much of Britain to a standstill: trains stopped, newspapers were limited, food deliveries delayed, and public services disrupted.

The strike remained peaceful overall, with no major violence. Indeed, strikers organising community efforts like volunteer services and football matches with police.

• In part 2 we will look at the government response & the overall impact of the strike.

Picture Credits:

Stanley Baldwin (Fair Use)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#/media/File:Stanley_Baldwin_1932.jpg

Sir Herbert Samuel (Fair Use)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Samuel,_1st_Viscount_Samuel

Date: May 1, 2026

Categories: Articles

Oil Wars: Speeding The Transition To Renewable Energy

WE BELIEVE that the vast majority of – if not all – wars are economic in nature. Various arms companies obviously make a small fortune in selling weapons to those involved in conflicts. However, maybe not so obvious is the money to be made by the oil companies.

This article – the original of which you can find here https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/03/26/oil-wars-speeding-the-transition-to-renewable-energy/ – looks at the profits made by US oil companies in the wake of the Israeli/US attack on Iran.

It highlights the dangers of relying ‘on distant resources that threaten their security and safety.’ Interestingly, it goes on to suggest that renewable energy could be the answer to these dangers & that ‘self-sufficiency should be the goal and the promise for all. ‘

Written John K. White – see details below – the article appeared towards the end of last month on the Counterpunch website. Counterpunch is a US news site which operates ‘from an independent left-leaning perspective.’

We present this article as part of our ongoing efforts to promote debate, particularly between those who hold alternative & non-conformist points of view.

It goes without saying that there are no links between John K. White, Counterpunch & the National Liberal Party.

Wind turbines, Columbia River Gorge. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Oil Wars: Speeding The Transition To Renewable Energy

ONE SIMPLE observation since the US-Israel attack on Iran on February 28 is that solar panel prices have not risen, staying at around $300 for an off-the-shelf, 400-watt commercial panel (7 cents/W for an industrial solar cell). But oil prices have risen, reaching $116 per barrel in the first week of hostilities, a 65% increase from the pre-war mark of $70/barrel, raising energy prices for everyone including American consumers at the pump.

US gasoline prices are roughly the same as in 2000 (adjusted for inflation), primarily because of an increased domestic supply of petroleum from hydraulic fracturing (the so-called “shale gale”), despite many known dangers (earthquakes, water poisoning, toxic air). But war in the Middle East has once again raised oil prices around the world, similar to the OPEC oil embargo after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (First Oil Shock) and the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution (Second Oil Shock), although long car lines have not yet formed as in the ‘70s.

Attempting to calm the fears about more shocks, Donald Trump stated that higher oil prices “is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace.” In his usual tone-deaf way, he added “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” Indeed oil companies do, but not consumers.

In purely economic terms, the big winners since the start of the US-Israel attack are American oil companies, such as Exxon, Chevron, and Occidental, seeing increased profits on safe domestic supplies without having to pay a war surcharge. As noted by the Financial Times, oil groups will reap a $63 billion windfall “from Gulf war disruption” if 2026 crude prices average $100/barrel. Companies without holdings in the Middle East, traders without tankers needing to transit the narrow Strait of Hormuz, and global arms dealers also benefit.

Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest petroleum reserve (300 billion barrels), will also benefit as old contracts are renewed, although extraction can’t be ramped up overnight in its rusted industry, while the thicker Orinoco crude requires more refining. Canadian oil sands and US fracking (already at historic highs) will also fill the gap with increased extraction.

Russia may be the biggest winner, able to sell previously sanctioned supplies, mostly to China and India, thanks to a temporary one-month US waiver given to calm energy markets. We will see how temporary. The Russia bump is especially damaging to Ukraine, which will suffer more aggression just as Russia’s war chest was being depleted by sanctions. The floating Russian tanker fleet will also finally be able to dock. Increased Russian sales alone, however, will not lower prices as the global oil market was already oversupplied, absorbing the initial shock, while springtime in the northern hemisphere lessens the need for heating oil. Nonetheless, a $100+/barrel market is here for a while.

The main losers are consumers and taxpayers everywhere. The US Pentagon estimated the first six days of war cost American taxpayers $11.3 billion, while Russia could receive an additional $10 billion per month from increased sales at higher prices, a US-Russian money pipeline. Blood money. Higher inflation and increased immigration will follow. The Gulf states have been left to fend for themselves despite a large US military presence. The environment will also suffer from increased heavy-oil refining, dirty oil-sands extraction, fracking, and toxic fouling. And, of course, millions of war-stricken citizens across the Middle East and Ukraine.

Believing Donald Trump is a fool’s game as many are still learning. His “no wars” Big Lie duped the world. The consequences for Iran include widespread death and destruction, but the US has also been damaged. What negotiator would trust the US again? Which countries would change policy based on US assurances? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (thrice, …), shame on me. Expect more unpredictability and mistrust from already spooked allies. And more blowback.

Price volatility will increase throughout the war and longer if large sections of petroleum infrastructure are destroyed in the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz remains impassible, if only to American shipping. Saudi Arabia can divert some Strait of Hormuz exports (6 million barrels/day) overland via pipeline to Yanbu on the Red Sea, but other Gulf countries won’t be able to secure the world’s most vulnerable chokepoint, where 20% of daily oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports once flowed.

Releasing strategic reserves (US, 400 million barrels) and lowering taxes in western countries can help lower prices (or keep them rising further). Spain, Germany, and Ireland have already started offering tax rebates, fuel allowances, and lower excise duties, while Ireland has fast-tracked plans for more renewable energy to reduce the demand on foreign petroleum supplies. Other countries will soon follow.

Expect more senseless tit-for-tat oil manipulations (destroying infrastructure, blocking exports). The potential for a catastrophic event at any of the Gulf oil depots is high, including Iran’s main storage hub on Kharg Island that holds 90% of Iranian oil (85% of which is sent to China). An explosion there or at any of the other Gulf export depots – Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest – would cause more environmental damage than in the 1991 Gulf War (450 million gallons), many times worse than the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill from a faulty blowout protector (200 million gallons) or the 1989 Exxon Valdez punctured hull caused by human error (11 million gallons).

Damage to the South Pars-North Dome natural gas field – the world’s largest, shared between Iran and Qatar – is also a major environmental worry, already hit by a targeted Israel-US airstrike, about which Trump initially denied knowing. After Iran retaliated with an airstrike on Qatar’s LNG production at Ras Laffan, which processes 20% of the world’s LNG supply, Trump threatened to “massively blow up” the South Pars field if Iran continued to attack Qatari LNG sites.

Trump has also threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if tanker traffic is not allowed to freely transit the Gulf, which would likely cause excessive civilian damage. In response, Iran threatened to “irreversibly destroy” infrastructure in the Middle East if the United States attack its energy installations. Food shortages and lack of fertilizer are now increasing. Madness upon madness.

The purpose of the February 28 US attacks still hasn’t been made clear, other than to support Israel. But the resultant US participation may be to reduce Iran’s oil exports to increase American and Russian sales or weaken the NATO defence alliance and Ukraine. The motives could be that craven. Trump has already threatened NATO with a “very bad future” for not supporting his “short-term excursion.”

Whatever the goal, the rush to renewables will grow. There may be no alternative to stop more oil shocks. Or get the world back on a path to peace and curb global warming. The countries most impacted by reduced oil supplies will turn to safer alternatives, especially China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. American influence will continue to wane.

Perhaps we are finally seeing the end of oil after eight decades of conflict, ever since Franklin Roosevelt secretly met the Saudi king Ibn Saud in 1945 aboard the USS Quincy on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal on Roosevelt’s return home from the Big Three Yalta Conference. The resultant arrangement to develop the vast Saudi Arabian oil fields would become known as “solidification,” code for American aid in exchange for oil. At the same time, British colonial power was eroded across the region. The US effectively carved up the world, ensuring American companies would control the best oil.

The Venezuela and Iran spectacles show the world that the US can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. There needn’t be a reason, although Jimmy Carter did state in his 1980 State of the Union address after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary including military force.” Knowingly or not, Trump has put those words into action in the bluntest way possible.

There is nothing good about war, but more countries will think seriously about speeding the transition from oil to renewables. With renewable energy, no environmental damage from extraction, transportation, refining, filling, and burning; no need of foreign military bases to protect supply chains; no outsized top-down energy management. The world now sees that “Drill baby, drill” means “Kill baby, kill.”

There is plenty to do, but we are on the way. New energy installations last year were 85% renewables. Storage capacity and load sharing continues to grow to manage intermittency. Everywhere, the world is turning to renewables, from the small (shared neighborhood geothermal heating, bladeless wind turbines, plug-in balcony solar panels) to the big (60-GW green hydrogen electrolyzer in Texas, €1 trillion North Sea offshore wind farm, 2-GW Indian photovoltaic solar farm).

The potential is limitless: electric buses, ferries, short-haul planes, solar shingles, windows, awnings, cladding, parking lots, rotating sunflowers, water heating, floating, canal canopies, agrivoltaics, expanded bi-directional rooftop solar, P2P trading, household electrical storage, networked microgrids, smart buildings, home retrofits, district heating, and induction stoves, along with more sharing, the circular economy, zero-waste programs, right-to-repair, no to plastic, and decentralization. The steel and cement industries are also slowly being decarbonized, while electric vehicle sales are rising despite a recent slow-down other than in China (half of all new car sales) as are gasmobile-electric refits.

As American imperial control loosens, the United States will regret not leading the way to a greener future. China is surpassing the US in new thinking and new technology, especially renewables (wind, solar, storage). But every country has the potential to create their own energy without depending on distant resources that threaten their security and safety. Self-sufficiency should be the goal and the promise for all. The light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the light of an oncoming train. It is the sun.

John K. White, a former lecturer in physics and education at University College Dublin and the University of Oviedo. He is the editor of the energy news service E21NS and author of The Truth About Energy: Our Fossil-Fuel Addiction and the Transition to Renewables (Cambridge University Press, 2024) and Do The Math!: On Growth, Greed, and Strategic Thinking (Sage, 2013). He can be reached at: johnkingstonwhite@gmail.com

Date: April 6, 2026

Categories: Articles

Back To The Future?

SUSTAIN WILTSHIRE is an initiative founded by Crapper and Sons Landfill Ltd. It’s a family run business that has been established for over 40 years. They are based on the outskirts of Wootton Bassett.

The initiative is committed to recycling, reusing and repurposing landfill sites to create sustainable energy and heat. This, in turn, enables year-round fruit and vegetable production.

This is a new twist on the very old idea of a midden & is literally a case of back to the future. (A midden is basically a pile or heap of waste materials, often organic such as animal dung, food scraps, or other household rubbish.) Middens would be piled outside homes. The waste decomposed, providing heat, material to burn and composted biomass.

GROWING DOMES

Sustain Wiltshire aims to place pressured growing domes on the surface of sealed landfill sites. (These domes will be three times the size of a standard tennis court, and twice the height of a London double decker bus.)

Methan gas – which is currently burnt off – will be used to generate electricity and heat. Modern technology will ensure that a perfect growing temperature will be maintained all year round. Low-impact ultraviolet horticultural lights will also extend the growing season.

Growing methods would include hydroponics – a method of growing plants without soil, using nutrient-rich water to deliver essential minerals directly to the roots – raised growing beds and plant containers

JOBS CREATED

It’s predicted that each growing dome will produce 8,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables each year. (In addition, 130 new jobs will be created, and the release of 3,800 tonnes of CO2 each year will be prevented.)

And it’s believed that this initiative will provide 80% of all fruit and vegetable requirements for the local communities of Wootton Bassett, Brinkworth, Malmesbury and Purton.

It’s believed that this form of localism – which includes a distribution hub & daily delivery service – will mean that the fruit and vegetables will be cheaper than those available from supermarkets. In time, it’s hoped that deliveries could also include dairy products and meat from local farmers.

We National Liberals are autonomists, decentralists, environmentalists & localists. We also believe that each nation should be as self-sufficient as is possible (although we accept that it may not be possible to achieve 100% autarky.) We are opposed to the idea of people being servile serfs & support the idea of people becoming sovereign citizens. Therefore, we welcome this Sustain Wiltshire initiative as a move in the right direction.

• TO FIND out more, check out https://sustainwiltshire.co.uk/

Date: March 16, 2026

Categories: Articles

Iran Has Been Attacked By US And Israel When Peace Was Within Reach

WHAT ARE WE to make of the unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel at the end of last month – especially when diplomatic talks were making headway?

President Trump (in particular) has come under a lot of criticism over his actions. However, he’s not really doing anything out of the ordinary for a US president. In fact, can you recall the last one who didn’t start a war anywhere in the world?

The optics are certainly different – Trump’s manner & presentation are notoriously blunt – but it’s simply business as usual. The US is a capitalist state and, as we’ve explained countless times, Trump is a National Capitalist.

Capitalism requires three elements to function – cheap labour, an ever-expanding market & raw materials. These elements are usually acquired via the boardroom. If peaceful wheeling & dealing fails, the US military–industrial complex swings into action & uses brute force.

By sheer co-incidence, Iran has large reserves of oil and natural gas. It also has abundant deposits of copper, iron ore, coal, lead, zinc, gold, and other minerals. (These resources make Iran one of the most resource-rich nations in the Middle East, and they play a key role in its geopolitical and economic significance.). if the US wanted to dismantle that state they would have supported the numerous national minorities that live within that state’s fringes but they haven’t.

The Shia Muslim majority in Iran tend to be conservative & less materialistic in nature. That’s absolutely no use to the US capitalist state.

We feel that the US views Israel effectively as its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Israel know this which is why it also attacked Iran (which is very much opposed to Zionism) and is effectively allowed to do what it wants in the area.

As we noted earlier, all this happened when it appeared that diplomacy was working. To try and make sense of the situation, we reproduce an article by Dr. Bamo Nouri which recently appeared on The Conversation website. You can read the original here https://theconversation.com/iran-has-been-attacked-by-us-and-israel-when-peace-was-within-reach-277175 The Conversation is a network of nonprofit media outlets publishing articles by academic researchers in their respective areas of expertise.

It goes without saying that there are no links between Dr. Bamo Nouri, The Conversation & the National Liberal Party.

Iran Has Been Attacked By US And

Israel When Peace Was Within Reach

US AND IRANIAN negotiators met in Geneva (1) earlier this week in what mediators described as the most serious and constructive talks in years. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, spoke publicly of “unprecedented openness,” (2) signalling that both sides were exploring creative formulations rather than repeating entrenched positions. Discussions showed flexibility on nuclear limits and sanctions relief, and mediators indicated that a principles agreement could have been reached within days, with detailed verification mechanisms to follow within months.

Sensing how close the negotiations were — and how imminent military escalation had become — Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, made an emergency dash to Washington (3) in a last-ditch effort to preserve the diplomatic track.

In an unusually public move for a mediator, he appeared on CBS to outline just how far the talks had progressed. He described a deal that would eliminate Iranian stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, down-blend existing material inside Iran (4), and allow full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — with the possibility of US inspectors participating alongside them. Iran, he suggested, would enrich only for civilian purposes. A principles agreement, he indicated, could be signed within days. It was a remarkable disclosure — effectively revealing the contours of a near-breakthrough in an attempt to prevent imminent war.

But rather than allowing diplomacy (5) to conclude, the US and Israel have launched coordinated strikes across Iran (6). Explosions were reported in Tehran and other cities. Trump announced “major combat operations,” (7) framing them as necessary to eliminate nuclear and missile threats while urging Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow their leadership. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting US bases and allied states across the region.

What is most striking is not merely that diplomacy failed, but that it failed amid visible progress. Mediators were openly discussing a viable framework; both sides had demonstrated flexibility – a pathway to constrain nuclear escalation appeared tangible. Choosing military escalation at that moment undermines the premise that negotiation is a genuine alternative to war. It signals that even active diplomacy offers no guarantee of restraint. Peace was not naïve. It was plausible.

Iran’s approach in Geneva was strategic, not submissive. Proposals involving economic incentives – including energy cooperation (8) – were not unilateral concessions but calculated compromises designed to structure a politically survivable agreement in Washington. The core objective was clear: constrain Iran’s nuclear programme through enforceable limits and intrusive verification, thereby addressing the very proliferation risks that sanctions and threats of force were meant to prevent.

Talks had moved beyond rhetorical posturing toward concrete proposals. For the first time in years, there was credible movement toward stabilizing the nuclear issue (9). By attacking during that negotiation window, Washington and its allies have not only derailed a diplomatic opening but have cast doubt on the durability of American commitments to negotiated solutions. The message to Tehran – and to other adversaries weighing diplomacy – is stark: even when talks appear to work, they can be overtaken by force.

IRAN IS NOT IRAQ OR LIBYA

Advocates of escalation often invoke Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011 as precedents for rapid regime collapse under pressure. Those analogies are misleading. Iraq and Libya were highly personalised systems, overly dependent on narrow patronage networks and individual rulers. Remove the centre, and the structure imploded.

Iran is structurally different. It is not a dynastic dictatorship but an ideologically entrenched state with layered institutions, doctrinal legitimacy and a deeply embedded security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its authority is intertwined with religious, political and strategic narratives cultivated over decades. It has endured sanctions, regional isolation and sustained external pressure without fracturing.

Even a previous US-Israeli campaign in 2025 that lasted 12 days failed to eliminate Tehran’s retaliatory capacity. Far from collapsing, the state absorbed pressure and responded (10). Hitting such a system with maximum force does not guarantee implosion; it may instead consolidate internal cohesion and reinforce narratives of external aggression that the leadership has long leveraged.

THE MIRAGE OF REGIME CHANGE

Rhetoric surrounding the strikes has already shifted from tactical objectives to the language of regime change. US and Israeli leaders framed military action not solely as neutralising missile or nuclear capabilities, but as an opportunity for Iranians to overthrow their government. That calculus – regime change by force – is historically fraught with risk.

An incoming missile crashes into the sea off the port of Haifa in Israel as Iran retaliates. AP Photo/Leo Correa

The Iraq invasion should be a cautionary tale. The US spent more than a decade cultivating multiple Iraqi opposition groups – yet dismantling the centralised state apparatus still produced chaos, insurgency and fragmentation. The vacuum gave rise to extremist organisations such as IS, drawing the US into years of renewed conflict.

Approaching Iran with similar assumptions ignores both its institutional resilience and the complexity of regional geopolitics. Sectarian divisions, entrenched alliances and proxy networks mean that destabilisation in Tehran would not remain contained. It could rapidly spill across borders and harden into prolonged confrontation.

A REGION WIRED FOR ESCALATION

Iran has invested heavily in asymmetric capabilities (11) precisely to deter and complicate external intervention. Its missile, drone and naval systems are embedded along the strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy — and linked into a network of regional allies and militias.

In the current escalation, Tehran has already launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military bases and allied territories in the Gulf (12), hitting locations in Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (including Abu Dhabi), Kuwait and Qatar in direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s cities, including Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. Explosions have been reported in Bahrain and the UAE, with at least one confirmed fatality in Abu Dhabi (13), and several bases housing US personnel have been struck or targeted, underscoring how the conflict has already spread beyond Iran’s borders.

A full-scale regional war is now more likely than it was a week ago. Miscalculation could draw multiple states into conflict, inflame sectarian fault lines and disrupt global energy markets. What might have remained a contained nuclear dispute now risks expanding into a wider geopolitical confrontation.

WHAT ABOUT TRUMP’S PROMISE OF NO MORE FOREVER WARS?

Trump built his political brand opposing “endless wars” and criticising the Iraq invasion. “America First” (14) promised strategic restraint, hard bargaining and an aversion to open-ended intervention. Escalating militarily at the very moment diplomacy was advancing sits uneasily with that doctrine and revives questions about the true objectives of US strategy in the Middle East.

Tehran and other Iranian cities have come under heavy bombardment from Israel and the US. AP Photo

If a workable nuclear framework was genuinely emerging, abandoning it in favour of escalation invites a deeper question: does sustained tension serve certain strategic preferences more comfortably than durable peace?

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago address (15) announcing the strikes carried unmistakable echoes of George W. Bush before the 2003 invasion of Iraq (16). Military action was framed as reluctant yet necessary – a pre-emptive move to eliminate gathering threats and secure peace through strength. The rhetoric of patience exhausted and danger confronted before it fully materialises closely mirrors the language Bush used to justify the march into Baghdad.

The parallel extends beyond tone. Bush cast the Iraq war as liberation as well as disarmament, promising Iraqis freedom from dictatorship. Trump similarly urged Iranians to reclaim their country, implicitly linking force to regime change. In Iraq, that fusion of shock and salvation produced not swift democratic renewal but prolonged instability. The assumption that military force can reorder political systems from the outside has already been tested – and its costs remain visible.

The central challenge now facing the US is not simply Iran’s military capability. It is credibility. Abandoning negotiations mid-course signals that diplomacy can be overridden by force even when progress is visible. That perception will resonate far beyond Tehran.

Peace was never guaranteed. It was limited and imperfect, focused primarily on nuclear constraints rather than human rights or regional proxy networks. But it was plausible – and closer than many assumed. Breaking the bridge while building it does more than halt a single agreement – it risks convincing both sides that negotiation itself is futile.

In that world, trust erodes, deterrence hardens and aggression – not agreement – becomes the default language of international power. What we are witnessing is yet another clear indication that the rules-based order has been consigned to the history books.

(1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86yjnw4x49o

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/26/us-iran-nuclear-talks-middle-east-latest-news-updates

(3) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/27/omans-foreign-minister-meets-with-uss-vance-as-middle-east-tensions-rise

(4) https://theconversation.com/topics/iran-1870

(5) https://theconversation.com/topics/diplomacy-79

(6) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5ge95q6y7t

(7) https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/28/trump-iran-operation-00805558

(8) https://www.ft.com/content/27f02d44-a223-4934-8f2b-7cfd8772b181

(9) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1vd95nl9o

(10) https://theconversation.com/the-us-and-israels-attack-may-have-left-iran-stronger-260314

(11) https://bisi.org.uk/reports/irans-evolving-military-complementing-asymmetric-doctrine-with-conventional-capabilities

(12) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/multiple-gulf-arab-states-that-host-us-assets-targeted-in-iran-retaliation

(13) https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-fires-missiles-gulf-arab-states-one-killed-abu-dhabi-2026-02-28/

(14) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/president-trumps-america-first-priorities/

(15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-E7DIctrzo

(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cx3YjKV-L4

Date: March 9, 2026

Categories: Articles

Some Climate Change Deniers Are Like The Flat Earth Brigade!

MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE that politics simply consists of making as much noise as possible via demonstrations, pickets and so on. Whilst various forms of street activism are important, they’re not the be all & end all of politics.

In fact, it’s probably true to say that more than enough serious political work goes on behind the scenes, as opposed to on the streets. Indeed, well disciplined & orderly large-scale street activities simply wouldn’t take place if it wasn’t for backroom planning.

But working behind the scenes is not as exciting – or ‘glamourous’ – as taking part in demonstrations. Therefore, many people are put off by what are viewed as boring & repetitive administrative tasks.

It could be argued that writing letters to the press – especially the local press – falls under this category. Nevertheless, it remains a great way of getting National Liberal points of view across to the public and/or promoting constructive & respectful debate.

An example of this is reproduced below.

Here, Brent Cheetham, the NLPs well-known Councillor for Cuffley (in Hertfordshire) managed to get a letter published yesterday in the Hertfordshire Mercury under their banner headline of Some Climate Change Deniers Are Like The Flat Earth Brigade!

Hopefully, this form of respectful public engagement will help promote the ongoing debate about climate change.

Dear Sirs,

In my humble view Mr Jeremy Hall asks some valid questions regarding some folks’ attitude to “climate change” and the environment.

At one time there was great opposition to having plumbed in hot and cold running water to our houses. Something taken nowadays for granted and something that the health of the country has greatly improved due to better sanitation.

There were protest meetings held across the country as to the imposition of this much needed improvement to the nation’s health and well-being.

And just like some of the so-called climate change deniers, such folk even refused to acknowledge that there was a problem even though such a problem was held in plain sight.

Most folk nowadays just laugh at the opposition to plumbed in water, and the most famous saying at the time against plumbed in water was “If you give baths to the working class, they will only use it to store coal.”

Probably most folk of my generation will be pushing up daisies before climate change has a real impact on us?

This is beside the point, as what we should be thinking about is not ourselves but future generations and not the short-term benefits that fossil fuels can provide. We need to discuss our over reliance on such fuels.

Some of the more extreme climate change deniers remind me of that small group of individuals who still claim the earth is flat. My guess and hope is that future generations will just laugh at those folk today who refuse to move on and are just stuck in the rut of the past. Are they becoming just part of the cultural residue of a bygone age?

Date: February 9, 2026

Categories: Articles

Electoral Reform In Westminster

THE ELECTORAL Reform Society (ERS) describes itself as ‘an independent organisation leading the campaign for your democratic rights.’

It was formed way back in 1884 as the Proportional Representation Society. Here, academics, parliamentarians and members of the legal profession discussed the inadequacies of – and sought solutions to – the voting system.

Nearly 150 years later they are still leading the charge for electoral reform. It’s clear to all fair-minded people that the current ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) is actually undemocratic. But what should replace it?

To answer this, our attention was recently drawn to this interesting article – the original of which can be found here https://electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/electoral-reform/ – from the ERS.

It’s no secret that the National Liberal Party prefers the voting system known as Proportional Representation (PR). However, we’re more than happy to look at other systems such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) as advocated by the ERS. In short, anything has to be better than FPTP!

It goes without saying that there are no links between the Electoral Reform Society & the National Liberal Party. As usual, we’ve posted this article up to stimulate debate. Readers can comment on the NLP Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty – or the National Liberals Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

Electoral Reform In Westminster

The way we elect our MPs is not fit for purpose

GENERAL ELECTIONS are supposed to be the big events that allow us all to influence the direction the country will take over the next few years. Everyone has an equal voice in their vote, and the ensuring government can pass laws in our name, on the basis that we elected it.

But that’s not what happens.

The way we elect MPs to Westminster means that our parliament doesn’t represent Britain.

The link between how popular a party is at the polling booth and how many seats they get in the House of Commons is weak and unpredictable – and only gets more chaotic the more parties there are. This means that the issues that are important in Westminster aren’t the same as the issues the public feels strongly about.

When Parliament doesn’t represent public opinion, it has a real impact on life in Britain – it’s time we made sure seats matched votes to put voters back in control.

GENERAL ELECTIONS

In 2024 Labour won 63% of the seats in parliament on just 33.7% of the vote

In 2019, the Conservative Party turned 43.6% of the vote into 56.2% of the seats in parliament.

In 2017, the Conservatives had a lead of 2.5% in the popular vote over Labour, yet nearly had enough MPs to govern alone.

In 2015, The Greens and UKIP won nearly five million votes but received just two seats between them.

MAJOR ISSUES CAN BE DISREGARDED

The way we elect MPs to Westminster means that politicians can ignore major issues.

People who vote for candidates who don’t get elected aren’t represented at all. In the 2024 General Election, 58% of voters in the UK (1) ended up with an MP they didn’t vote for. But votes that stack up for winning candidates don’t make a difference either. Once a candidate has enough votes to win, any extra doesn’t make them win more.

Millions of people voted yet had no influence on the outcome. The issues they care about can be easily tossed aside, to be only dealt with when they are too much to ignore.

This isn’t inevitable. Most parliaments around the world use systems that mean they have to work on the major issues the public care about – because voters are in charge. You can find out about different ways of choosing MPs in our Voting Systems (2) section.

AN ENGINE OF INSTABILITY

The foundation of political stability is popular support – something not needed under our winner takes all system that sees parties handed large unearned majorities, and the power that comes with them, on minority support.

No party has won a majority of the vote in a UK general election in almost a century, yet due to First Past the Post we have near-constant single-party governments setting the rules for everyone. Our parliaments never represent the views of the public, allowing small cliques to dominate the political agenda.

Governments in the UK are like castles built on sand.

FOSTERING DIVISION BETWEEN US

Westminster’s voting system artificially divides the country, polarising us rather than allowing us to come together. While the results map can only have one colour per constituency, in reality, you’ll never find a town where everyone is the same.

Westminster’s one-person-takes all system makes everything black and white, hiding the many areas of agreement. Every issue becomes a stick to defeat an opponent, rather than something to be solved to the advantage of all.

It’s impossible for one MP to represent everyone in their constituency – which is why in most countries around the world you get a group of MPs for each area (3), representing the mix of opinions in that area. That’s the core idea of proportional representation – opinions in society are represented in proportion to their numbers.

NO GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT WINNER

Westminster’s First Past the Post electoral system normally delivers governments the majority didn’t vote for, but it also sometimes puts parties in power, even if they came second in the popular vote.

In 1951 48.8% of voters wanted a Labour government and 48% wanted a Conservative government. Yet there was a Conservative majority (4). And in the February election of 1974, Labour won 301 seats to 297 for the Conservatives – despite the Conservatives beating Labour in votes by 0.7%.

First Past the Post is the worst possible system for electing our representatives. We want to see the Single Transferable Vote, a fairer, more proportional voting system (5) that makes seats match votes – and means no one’s voice is ignored.

(1) https://election2024.electoral-reform.org.uk

(2) https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/

(3) https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/

(4) https://electoral-reform.org.uk/on-the-anniversary-of-a-stolen-election-let-1951s-wrong-winner-vote-be-a-lesson-to-us-all/

(5) https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/