The argument for standing aside in Makerfield sounds “strategic”, but from a Liberal Democrat perspective it is strategically short-sighted, democratically unhealthy, and misunderstands how Reform is defeated.
Political parties exist to represent voters, not simply to game outcomes between larger parties. If Liberal Democrats believe in liberal values, civil liberties, internationalism and local democracy, then voters everywhere deserve the opportunity to vote for those values. Writing off entire areas risks accelerating decline, not preventing it.
The claim that standing and polling poorly makes the party “look inept” ignores Liberal Democrat history. The party’s biggest advances often began from tiny bases through years of consistent local campaigning. Community politics only works if voters repeatedly see Liberal Democrats showing up and fighting elections — not disappearing whenever things look difficult.
More importantly, conceding territory to Labour in the name of “stopping Reform” misunderstands why Reform is growing. Reform’s rise is driven by disillusionment with Westminster, economic insecurity and distrust of the political establishment. Simply asking voters to unite behind Labour does not address any of those causes.
There is also little evidence that parties standing aside reliably stops Reform. Tactical voting works best when voters make informed decisions locally, not when party machines remove democratic choices altogether. Research after the 2026 local elections found anti-Reform tactical coordination was inconsistent because politics is no longer a simple two-party contest.
The argument also assumes Labour revival is the only route to stopping Reform. That is plainly false. In many parts of England, Liberal Democrats — not Labour — are the main challengers to Conservatives and Reform alike. Ed Davey himself warned voters that failing to back strong Liberal Democrat campaigns could hand power to Reform.
There is another problem too: voters are not owned by parties. Liberal Democrat supporters are perfectly capable of voting tactically themselves if they believe Reform poses a unique threat. A party leadership deciding voters should not even have a Liberal Democrat option risks looking managerial rather than principled.
Ultimately, the argument for standing aside exposes the deeper problem with First Past the Post. Voters should not be forced into fear-based calculations between “least bad” options. The answer to Reform is not fewer democratic choices, but more liberal voices, stronger local campaigning and electoral reform so people can vote positively for what they believe in.
For those expecting Burnham to champion a clearly proportional electoral system immediately, the picture is more complicated. Recent comments suggest support for reforms such as the Supplementary Vote system, which is preferential but not fully proportional.
* Iain Donaldson is the treasurer of the Rochdale Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Martin Wainwright's Guardian obituary of Michael Meadowcroft
Evaluating different electoral systems for the House of Commons
Brexit and summer holidays
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
David Wright
19 Comments
I’d forgotten just how lackluster Andy Burham was. A couple of days ago he made a speech, and he was dull, emotionless, unstructured, and most importantly could barely raise his head from his notes. This is not the “Messiah”, he’s a scouser boy who’s ambitions have exceeded his ability.
I’m not fussed by The King of the North, and neither is Keir Starmer. I believe a thoroughly ruthless Starmer has a Plan A if Burnham loses, Plan B if Burnham wins, and a Plan C for an immediate GE if all else fails.
The most worried person in Makerfield is Farage. I’ll leave it there and let you work out why?
We should stand a candidate. However I feel for the person who ends up being elected because it is a thankless task!
“We should stand a candidate.”
Seconded
“We should stand a candidate.”
Of course we bl@@dy w@ll should.
And that candidate should talk about jobs, the cost of living, Trump’s war, the connection between them and why closer military and economic alliances with the European states makes sense.
Regardless of what we think of Andy Burnham, if he can’t win without the 1.5% of the vote that we’ll probably end up with them that’s entirely on him!
The position I think I am settling on is that we should 100% campaign in Makerfield, but that we don’t need to campaign *for* a specific candidate.
The UK’s media will be fixated on the election – and rightly so, given how consequential it will be. So simply saying nothing is a huge wasted opportunity. Instead, we should focus on highlighting the problems facing Makerfeild and the country, and putting forward a liberal alternative (not to mention highlighting just how undemocratic this whole squalid scenario really is). We can do that, without asking voters to cast their ballots a specific way. We don’t have to stand aside, just help people make informed decisions.
But a context like this is an opportunig.
Agreed the Party should stand a candidate without question. All the other parties are including greens and so should Lib Dems. It’s what you call offering voters a democratic choice
To expand the discussion, post GE should successful LDs not alleign with Labour and SNP in a scenario where it blocks a Reform or Reform/Tory administration, because those MPs were voted in on Liberal values not Labour ones?
@Ian D: That’s surely a question for after the next GE, which won’t be until 2029 (or summer 2028 at the very earliest). I think it’s safe to say that the Lib Dems would not prop up a Tory &/or Reform government.
If we don’t stand in Makerfield it means that we are no longer a national party.
Couple of thoughts.
1. We are not a national party anymore and competing with a Raving Looney candidate for bottom place and 400 votes is pretty irrational
2. As an ex resident and worker in Ashton /Abram, also an ex council candidate in the Ashton ward, who did receive almost 40% of the vote in a straight fight with Labour, I see little or no value in standing, we won’t campaign, it is pointless.
I usually want to fight every by election 100% but this is a non starter.
Give it a miss, no one will notice.
Very good wins this week in Malvern and Bridport. Reform results poor.
Whilst agreeing with Burnham on the need for electoral reform this isn’t reason enough not to stand a candidate in Makerfield, indeed I see we have in Jake Austen, locally born too. Let’s get behind him.
Encouraging results overnight too, in Malvern and Bridport local elections. Again we seem to be consolidating in areas of relative strength.
We have a candidate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgp256lj3go
“Lib Dems announce Makerfield by-election candidate
The Liberal Democrats have announced Jake Austin as their candidate for next month’s Makerfield by-election.
The Wigan-born councillor, who represents Hazel Grove in Stockport, will stand in the contest in the Greater Manchester constituency on Thursday 18 June.
The poll follows the recent resignation of Labour MP Josh Simons.
Austin was also the Lib Dems’ candidate in the Greater Manchester Mayoralty election in 2024……..”
I can’t comment on the strength of your local party and campaign, but you need to give it a go, just to be next to Burnham on various podiums etc: We know the Reform candidate is vulnerable due to their previously expressed views; the Green candidate was just removed for having apparently expressed the view that the arson attacks on the Jewish ambulance service were faked.
There is an opening. I don’t know how much people or money you should pour into it, but there is a chance for you.
I’m no great fan of Mr Burnham, but when I began to read Mr Donaldson’s article I was expecting to read a reasonable and interesting critique of his record and his policies as Mayor of Manchester. I was very disappointed to see one small rather vague paragraph near the end which lacked detail referring to proportional representation.
Come on you modern Lib Dems, time to up your game with radical relevant policies if you wish to be taken seriously.
Yes good luck to Jake Austin and it’s the right decision. Hope he’s supported by the national party.
Good luck Jake from originally a Macc lad. We shouldn’t be taking any lessons from Mancs. Anyway ability wise Burnham is much inferior to Starmer who. has inherited a tough job and been excellent in foreign affairs.
There is a new group within The Green Party calling for their Candidate to be withdrawn in return for Turnham making a clear commitment to include Fair Votes in the next Labour Manifesto.
This seems like an excellent idea that we could copy but go farther – withdrawal in return for Fair Votes in this Parliament. That would give The Lords freedom to filibuster , all the better to take them on & beat them.
We have a few days still, lets do it.