It is obvious that we, Liberal Democrats, are excellent local campaigners, as evidenced with us winning over 72 MPs in the recent 2024 General Election. However, there is one clear problem present with the strategy – we are too reliant on local champions, such people who are great for local constituencies, but often weak on a national level. We don’t always have campaigns that everyone across Great Britain resonates with. Despite having over fourteen times more MPs than Reform UK, our activists struggle for national media coverage. Meanwhile, figures like Mr Farage continue to dominate the media, securing endless airtime for their racist agenda.
Ed Davey and all party activists need to take on a national issue; to campaign and fight an issue that a majority of the public will be interested in, an issue which will help the us economically, which will act as a buffer zone to the chaos of a second Trump presidency, which will give the UK refuge the future economic uncertainty – The European Union.
In the 2019 general election campaign, it was our main focus to “cancel Brexit”, back then we didn’t have as much as a voice of change in parliament – with only 12 MPs not the massive 72 we now boast, but why did we stop?
Ed Davey should use his 72 MPs to put pressure on the current government to rejoin the customs union, the single market, and talk once more about the 8 years of political turmoil which Mr. Farage and others like to blame on migrants, deflecting away from the real issue of Brexit.
What’s in it for us?
We need to increase the vote share by the next general election, if we don’t, there won’t be as much anti-Tory tactical voting, and the Liberal Democrats will have a similar seat reduction to that of the 2015 general election. People want to like and vote for a moderate, centralist party, a party not controlled by bigots, extremism, and internet-fuelled vitriol.
We were once the party of anti-Brexit advocacy, even when we lacked significant national representation.
Now, with over 70 MPs we have the credibility to take the fight further. The time to act is now. It is now or never; 2025 must be the year the Liberal Democrats reclaim their identity as champions of a better, more united future for the UK.
Do you think we should lead the charge on Brexit, or is it too risky?
* Jake Martindale is a young, passionate Lib Dem supporter currently studying politics. Strongly anti-Brexit, he is committed to campaigning against it.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
An alarming decline in Welsh nature
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Remembering Don Cupitt and his television series The Sea of Faith
How to improve the regulation of political polling - The Week in Polls
Why the government are getting it wrong on local government reorganisation
John Mc
Simon R
David Evans
David Raw
33 Comments
I supported the Leadership’s policy of not talking much about Brexit in the 2024 General Election campaign. I still that was the right decision, and I believe it was a major factor in our winning 72 seats.
However we are now in a situation where there is unlikely to be a general election until 2028, since I can see no reason why the Labour Party would want to go to the country in less than four years after July 2024.
Accordingly we should adjust our messaging. Our 2024 manifesto, on page 112, already talked about the need to join the Single Market.
Our messaging should be:
– Brexit was implemented in a way that put us out of the Single Market and the Customs Union.
– This has harmed the economy significantly, and is one of the key reasons for our lack of growth.
– Britain cannot afford to stay outside the Single Market and the Customs Union.
– Liberal Democrats would prefer to join the EU and have a say in EU decisions, but if voters don’t want that then we should be like Norway (in the Single Market) or Turkey (in the Customs Union), but better to join both.
I agree with Mohammed Amin, though would add a commitment to hold a referendum before joining the Single Market, Customs Union or EU. We should hold to the democratic principle that only a fresh referendum can undo a decision of a previous referendum.
It seems to me that there is increasingly a patriotic case to be made for drawing closer to the EU in the light of Trump and Musk. Both are bullies, neither is popular in this country, and one senses that nemesis will follow hubris at some point. In the meantime, both Badenoch and Farage seem to be sucking up to them.
Well done, Ed Davey, for picking up on this: https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/musk-post-on-us-liberating-britain-ed-davey-says-us-ambassador-should-be-summoned-to-explain.
I heard about Ed’s intervention on the BBC World at One. We, the Lib Dems are showing ourselves to be the patriots. The Tories and Reform are not. They seem to want us to become some kind of satrapy of Trump’s Washington. We must explain that closer ties with Europe reduce that risk. There is a major opportunity for us here.
The problem with re-visiting the 2016 question on Brexit is it risks re-opening the 2014 question on Scottish Independence.
Totally agree with Jake about “a national issue; to campaign and fight an issue that a majority of the public will be interested in“. But that means an issue that the majority of the public will be interested in. It does not mean an issue that is totally absorbing to the tiny minority of the population who happen to be LibDem activists. So no, please let’s not jump back into the Brexit/Remain hole. Apart from anything else, we saw what happened in 2019 when we tried that. Most voters are interested in keeping financially afloat, getting to see a GP when they need one, and knowing that their lives will carry on and hopefully get better. They are not on the whole interested in reopening old debates about the EU.
It might come as a surprise to you Jake but the EU was never that popular when we were in it.
Voters were a bit indifferent to it once every 5 years. A trading block is fine , but it’s intention was always to morph into something far more federal & that is something many of the public are deeply sceptical of. On the face of it, looking at the current situation in the EU things aren’t that great. Then of course you’ve got Schengen and the Euro both of which are a near impossible sell & rightly so .
Whilst I agree with Mohammed Amin that the Lib Dem manifesto stated we should rejoin the customs market etc, I think the MPs should mention it more in parliament and keep trying to persuade the Labour Party to adopt this stance.
I think it is no longer the case that talking about one thing means not talking about another. People are more likely to know that you are talking about GP availability if they recognise you or follow you online because you talk about something else. People who are not interested in Europe will ignore us. People who are will like our being the loudest voice on the subject. Added to that, we might just persuade some people that we are right.
“Ed Davey and all party activists need to take on a national issue.”
Yes, that’s one of the best things about the party under Ed: he’s got us campaigning on national issues: care above all, state of the NHS, state of water infrastructure.
Thankfully, we’ve finally escaped our introverted tendencies to bang on about matters that are of prime interest only to us activists i.e. PR, Europe.
Let’s not go back there.
I quite agree with taking this up more as a national issue. We are struggling to hold onto members and I believe have an average age of members of 59. Reform’s membership is shooting up. If we showed our ideals more clearly, we might attract younger people away from Labour. They have every reason to be disappointed with Keir Starmer, David Lammy et al.
I would say this is one of a number of issues we can talk about nationally. Culturally we have always been closer to Europe than most other places around the world, including the USA. Culture has come up in the current debate about grooming gangs.
We also believe in mutually beneficial arrangements with other nations for economic and security reasons, both of which are fundamental to the purpose of government.
Referendum took us out of EU so it would be difficult to go back in without one. Not so SM/CU as that was a decision taken by a govt with stated manifesto policy. All we’d need morally is clear manifesto mention.
Sadly, much of the foregoing underscores the weakness of not promoting an identity for the LDs other than “not being the Conservatives”. OK, we have moved on a bit, but I fear there is a serious threat to us unless we can gain greater traction for what we believe in (“Caring” is not enough). The link provided by John McHugo certainly encapsulate some of what we should be saying, but how many people actually know about this? And what can we do about this?
And yes, John Kelly, we shall also struggle to retain members if local parties fail to embrace those outside their immediate target areas by encouraging us to campaign rather than selfishly obstructing those of us left who actually believe in campaigning, fighting elections and finding new members. Right now, I ask myself “what’s the point in remaining a member?”.
I could not agree more with Jake, and the earlier the better. It would be abrogation of responsibility not to talk about the economic effect of being outside the single market and customs union (about £40 billion lost tax revenue per annum at the last count, from the OBR). We will not get enough growth into this economy unless we at least rejoin the customs union: single market would be much better. This is why Labour are going to hit an economic brick wall within a year as growth fails to come to their rescue and they are hemmed in by their manifesto commitments on tax. It would be good for the Lib Dem’s, when that time comes, to say we have been making the economic case for rejoining the customs union and single market for some time and that, apart from austerity, that may be the only option left.
We need a NATIONAL subject to campaign on.As mentioned Reform is attracting the young .WE MUST ALSO DO IT AND BE VERY VOCALLY/VISUALLY DEMONSTRATIVE.The young want homes that they can afford to live in,dreams for a better life.
Extra coverage on social media towards the younger persons interests is necessary.Which media sights are they most involved in should be be concentrated on.To combat Reform is it not better to remain on Twitter (I will never call it X) to combat them rather to move towards Blue Sky talking to the already converted.?
The issue now is not “EU or not EU”. It’s European security. Europe (including the UK) cannot rely on the US in the face of the threat from Putin, and in any event the US seems to c9nsidwr a rising China of far greater importance.
Europe needs to get its security act together (and that means a lot more spending on guns rather than butter unfortunately). The EU may or may not be a part of that but it seems to me that framing anti liberal forces as appeasers of Putin is a much better way of framing this than talking about rejoining the EU.
It is good to see Ed Davy moving towards this approach.
I agree with Jake – we do need a core issue that gets us on the front foot and gives us clear differentiation from both Labour and the Conservatives/Reform. The Single Market has many positives going for it – restoring the Four Freedoms would be such a significant gain, not just in terms of undoing those new trade barriers but moreover in terms of a greater range of opportunities and mobility, especially for our young people. It is in a sense the very best trade deal possible. During the 2016-2019 period much comment was made about a Norway model – being part of the European Economic Area, but not part of the Customs Union. This might have allowed us to have our own policies with respect to fisheries for example and perhaps more importantly to continue to do trade deals independently with third countries (as we would retain control over tariffs). It is also possible that if we stayed out of the Customs Union we might also be able to retain our membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership which the UK only just acceded to last month (however readers might have technical knowledge about whether this would be possible or not).
I find the Norway model – joining the Single Market but remaining out of the Customs Union – might be most attractive as a ‘best of both worlds’ offer.
We are already campaigning on national issues: care and the NHS are pressing concerns for voters of all classes and ages.
The “Norway Model” gets LD activists excited.
Which do you want, a party that appeals to voters?
Or a party that appeals to our own activists and is divorced from ordinary voters’ concerns
Tristan Ward makes a good point. If we want to get closer to the EU, then we really need to get closer to the European way of doing things. Reintroduce compulsory military service, re-arm etc.
Now that Poland have got rid of their right wing populist government they’ve even announced the introduction of compulsory firearms training in schools. All Polish schoolchildren will now be taught how to use, maintain and clean an AR15.
Meanwhile in the UK…
I agree with Jake, who probably represents the thinking of the younger generation who have suffered some of the consequences of Brexit ( employment opportunities, unaffordability of housing etc.).
The latest ramblings of Trump make it more important than ever that we rejoin Europe. And soon!
The world now has three dictators representing most of the land masses on earth. But they are not satisfied. All three want to use their power to grab whatever additional land or ocean they can to feed their insatiable greed.
In this latest scenario, Europe needs all the help it can get to survive. It will be lost without the UK. And the UK will be lost without Europe!
We had unaffordable housing before Brexit – it was our EU membership that was in large part the cause of our unaffordable housing – because of the rapid population increase resulting from Freedom of Movement that even today means we don’t have anything like enough houses. Ditto employment opportunities: EU FoM meant huge competition for jobs and therefore fewer employment opportunities in practice for UK citizens. So neither of those things work as arguments for EU membership.
Trump is awful but he’ll only be in power for 4 years. I’m not convinced that his ramblings make it crucial that we rejoin an organisation, the leaders of whose member Governments include Victor Orban, Georgia Meloni and Robert Fico, with a high chance of Herbert Kickl soon joining that list. (Real lesson: Who is currently in power in various democracies is not a good basis for determining decades-long term strategic partnerships – including things like EU membership)
@ Simon,
I agree that Brexit hasn’t made much difference to the affordability of housing. However, although the level of immigration is one factor, it isn’t the only one. Others are:
1) The desire of politicians, despite what they might say to the contrary, to keep housing prices high. If the price fell significantly the economy would collapse. The value of property acts as collateral for the high level of private debt in the UK.
2) We are all living longer. It’s often financially more advantageous for elderly people to keep on living in a large house than trade down to something smaller.
3) The occupancy level of our housing stock is at its lowest ever. High prices mean that young people can’t afford to have children. Wealthy people are buying up second homes as an investment and for use as holiday accommodation.
There is a big problem with unoccupied houses and apartments in London.
https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-london-and-westminster-city-council-call-stronger-powers-crack-down-long-term-empty-properties
In reply to Mary Fulton, the referendum was not about leaving the single market and customs union, but merely about leaving the EU. We could have left the EU but stayed in the SM/CU. Therefore I don’t believe we would need a referendum.
In response to Simon R, many people may not be that interested in rejoining the EU per se, but we need to make the case that accessing the single market, for example, will make their lives better and boost all our prosperity.
It seems that the Labour government’s idea that growth will be the panacea is unfortunately not happenning. Perhaps the LDs could campaign on a program of people being generally better off in a low/no growth economy. Such things as making it easier to cycle/ walk/ use public transport rather than having to buy and run a car or two, increasing equality by higher taxes on the higher paid, proper social security, cleaning up the waterways, abolish standing charges on energy bills, spend the road budget on rail and filling potholes rather than more by passes.
Prioritise the sort of society and environment we collectively want to live in, and work out what the economy should look like to make that happen.
@John Davis – “ We could have left the EU but stayed in the SM/CU.”
You are right, some of us were saying this at the time. The Brexiteers, wanted total out…
The supposed court case that some will point to saying this was not possible, does not actually support their claim as the UK ( due to hardline Brexiteers) did not contest the view presented to the court.
The problem is, having left, rejoining the SM/CU is going to be much harder and will almost certainly raise both the referendum question and give a platform to those who want to see the UK become even more of a US dependency.
@ Jenny Barnes – lPrioritise the sort of society and environment we collectively want to live in…”
As far as I could that was the only real Brexit benefit, and said so at the time.
Brexit, by depressing the economy, gave the breathing space to make transformational change, Covid lockdown showed how far and fast we could go, if we wanted. Remember in lockdown, “real” economic activity hardly moved, but “overhead” economic activity was massively reduced.
However, as we have seen politicians have looked the gift horse in the mouth and turned the other way. Hence why we are still vulnerable to the perfect storm that is due to envelope us; who needs lifeboats? …
Yes. A case in point being the completely unnecessary corporate demands for office workers to “return to the office” rather than WFH, having discovered that they were at least as productive without the 2hour a day commutes.
You may remember that we destroyed our credibility by claiming that we would be the majority party in Parliament in 2019 with Jo Swinson as Prime Minister, abolishing article 50 immediately to Stop Brexit. Not surprisingly, she lost her seat in Scotland but left the Lib Dems short. In the run-up to the 2016 Referendum it was claimed that we could keep the SM/CU to maintain our economic/trading position but leave the EU’s “bureaucracy”. In the event the hardliners wanted to abolish all EU regulations as well.
Campaigning to Rejoin at the moment would be counter-productive, but we should use every opportunity to point out what Brexit has cost us in real terms, without blaming those who were deceived by the lies of sunny uplands and greater prosperity for all.
@ David Murray,
“In the run-up to the 2016 Referendum it was claimed that we could keep the SM/CU to maintain our economic/trading position …..”
That is true.
Remainers in Parliament could have allied themselves with those on the Leave side who would have preferred a softer Brexit. I personally would have preferred if we’d stayed in the CU for at least a transitional period.
However, the alliance was largely with the Tory ERG group. Why?
It would be useful to pick a national issue and campaign persistently on it . The challenge is getting the right one. It would need to reflect our values, distinguish us from the other main Parties and be important enough to resonate with a majority of the electorate. I’d favour a humanitarian one, whether it be how we would deal with immigration, homelessness or inequality.