As a committed Liberal Democrat, I was disappointed by our recent “Buy British” video. It sends the wrong message about who we are—and worse, it risks alienating the very voters we need to attract.
In this article, I want to explain why the video undermines our liberal values, explore the political motivations I fear may lie behind it, and argue that it hurts us more than it helps.
Animal welfare or economic nationalism?
Our last manifesto mentions animal welfare five times. It promises an Animal Welfare Bill, a ban on selling animal products produced to lower standards than those allowed in the UK, and a commitment to meet or exceed the EU’s stricter rules on antibiotics in farming.
But what are these policies really for? Are they motivated by genuine concern for animal suffering—or are they more about shielding UK farmers from cheaper competition abroad?
When Ed Davey encourages people to “buy British” even when it means buying factory-farmed meat, it starts to feel like the latter. So who are we making policy for? The country as a whole—or the older rural communities that currently vote for us?
Environmentalism isn’t about borders
Look at our stated values. Under the “Liberal Democrat Values” section of our website, we call ourselves environmentalists. We commit to “environmentally sustainable means of production and consumption.”
But when it comes to food, it’s what we eat — not where it was made — that has the biggest environmental impact. Our World in Data makes this point clearly.
I’m not saying we should tell people they have to be vegan. But if we’re going to start recommending foods, those recommendations should align with our environmental values. Otherwise, we risk appearing tone-deaf — especially to younger environmentalist members and voters.
Are we serious about tackling climate change and inspiring the next generation, or are we focused on keeping favour with older, rural voters? It’s a fair question — one that also applies to the debate around the so-called “family farm tax.”
A proudly internationalist party — so why the protectionist message?
Here’s another quote from our values statement:
“Liberal Democrats are proud internationalists. We believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward-looking.”
Why, then, are we adopting the anti-globalist, Trump-style rhetoric of the “Buy British” campaign?
We’re told it’s to counter Trump’s tariffs, and that we got the idea from Canada’s “Buy Canadian” movement. But Canada imports about 57% of its food from the US — encouraging Canadians to buy locally actually affects trade with America.
The UK, by contrast, only imports 7% of its food from the US. Meanwhile, 76% of our food imports come from the EU. So in encouraging people to “buy British,” we’re not hurting Trump — we’re risking harm to our European trade relationships.
If America is turning its back on global trade, the liberal response is not to follow suit. It’s to double down on cooperation and rules-based internationalism — especially with Europe.
Trump would be proud
Let’s be honest: if Donald Trump watched this video, he might cringe at the delivery — but he’d understand the message. He’d say:
“This Davey guy — he gets it. They’re protecting British farmers just like I protect American car manufacturing.”
And that’s the problem. Our messaging shouldn’t echo the logic of nationalism and protectionism. That’s not who we are. At a time when global cooperation is more vital than ever — on trade, climate, and democracy — we should be leading with our liberal values, not mimicking populist rhetoric.
Let’s be the Liberals we say we are
If we want to attract younger voters, climate-conscious voters, and people looking for a principled alternative to populism, we need to be consistent. Our policies, our messaging, and our tone should reflect the values we claim to hold: compassion, sustainability, and internationalism.
We’re better than this. Let’s act like it.
* Ricky Treadwell is a Liberal Democrat member based in Oxfordshire.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Mike Peters
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
38 Comments
Very-much this. I have no interest in protectionism, and am put off from voting for any party that espouses it.
“But when it comes to food, it’s what we eat — not where it was made — that has the biggest environmental impact.
This may well be so, but I strongly suspect that factory farmed pig meat from (say) Denmark has a larger environmental impact than factory farmed meat from the UK because it has to be shipped over the North Sea. And I expect the same applies to pig meat from “happy pigs” as well.
I think the answer to the free trader’s line that “environmentalism = protectionism” is to internalise the cost of environmental damage so that the person who ultimately causes the environmental damage – the consumer – pays the cost of making it good.
But the EU allows transport of live farm animals across borders, something that the Liberal Democrats opposed long before Brexit made it possible for the UK to have its own policy on this. In 2019 the EU accounted for over 80% of the global trade in live farm animals ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/27/eu-revealed-to-be-worlds-biggest-live-animal-exporter ). Are you seriously arguing that we should give up our more humane farm animal policy purely for the ability to trade more with the EU?
Trump bashing seems to have done wonders for the Canadian Liberal Party, so it may be worth a try here to improve our poll numbers.
Some media reports have suggested recently that King Charles may invite the USA to join the commonwealth. As this piece suggests such a move is highly unlikely US ‘joining’ the Commonwealth: An unreasonable expectation.
What might be a more credible media story is Trump inviting the UK to join the United States of America (along with Canada) in a sort of reverse takeover on the 250th anniversary of US Independence. The UK could be renamed Airstrip 1 in honour of George Orwells blueprint for the
big brotherTrump revolution and if the commonwealth talks go anywhere, New Zealand could be renamed Airstrip 2.Ricky – Look at the Opinion Polls. It works.
“a larger environmental impact than [ food] from the UK because it has to be shipped ”
it’s actually very small. Moving food on ships costs very little – just think about those huge MV “We’re taking your job to China” container ships and how much food you would get in a standard 40 foot container. New Zealand lamb in my local Sainsbury’s is £8 /leg – less than half the cost of UK lamb. Shipped frozen, ofc.
Labelling those who advocate buying British as “Trumpian” is certainly a novel electoral tactic.
Ricky’s scepticism about animal welfare over antibiotics and production standards because he considers them to be overly protectionist seems misplaced – is it worth pursuing an FTA with Mercosur, for instance, if the net result is increased deforestation of the Amazon Basin due to the plantation of soy beans as fodder for Brazilian livestock, whose regulations on the above are lower than both the UK and the EU? “Buy British” may sound jingoistic, but the presumably more accurate sentiment “Buy British if you can, European if you can’t, and non-US goods after that” wouldn’t cut through the media cycle.
@ Jennie
Re CO2 emissions of international shipping – currently around 3% of all emissions and projected to be 17% by 2050 if no action taken (see below). Clearly transporting pig meat from Denmark to the UK is a pretty small part of that but when you add up all the bananas, pineapples, citrus, grapes, apples, berries, kiwi, and avocados (not to mention NZ lamb) and most importantly cereals it all adds up.
I can’t find what percentage of maritime trade is food (I’d be interested to know) but for comparison the UK’s onshore CO2 output is 1% of the world’s.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/157_CAN%20CSC%20TD%20Submission%20Shipping.pdf
@Tristan Ward – “I think the answer to the free trader’s line that “environmentalism = protectionism” is to internalise the cost of environmental damage so that the person who ultimately causes the environmental damage – the consumer – pays the cost of making it good.”
However, local sourcing can totally avoid causing the environmental damage of air freight and shipping. Given the criticality of environmental issues, avoiding causing further environmental damage should be our priority.
Basically, the free trader is a free loader, who only wants to do the absolute minimum and wants someone else to clear up the totally avoidable mess they create.
There are two distinct paths to follow here.
Boycotting USA goods, removing them from our shelves and sending them back to the USA until such time as the USA comes to its senses and stops this tariff nonsense. As far as goods and services we should continue to advocate for free trade. A buy British campaign is definitely not Liberal.
When it comes to agricultural goods, there is a clear security issue about being so reliant on food imports, whilst steadily destroyong our own agricultural capacity, which we have been doing since the 1750s. There is absolutely no need to have access to seasonal products all year round. I live much of my time in Greece and we do not have peaches or other summer fruit and vegetables all year round. We have what’s in season and much of it is grown in Greece. I think there is a strong security and environmental case for reversing gricultural decline in the UK and to seek to produce much more of our own food. Not buy British but sensible home production for local purchase. We will still need to import, but perhaps not from the USA.
Being anti-Trump is an excellent stance for our party, but it needs to be decoupled from anti free trade polemics on buying British.
Out of interest, are any of you aware of how this will come across outside of the Liberal Democrat bubble?
I think Ed Davey knows and that is why he is doing what he is doing.
@ roland
“Basically, the free trader is a free loader, who only wants to do the absolute minimum and wants someone else to clear up the totally avoidable mess they create.”
This is exactly the reason why I say the costs of making good environmental damage need to be internalised into balance sheets and cash flow statements so that the polluter pays for clear up. And inevitably, the costs for that clear up will be passed on the the consumer, without whom the pollution would never have ben incurred in the first place.
Buy British is probably popular as a slogan but that doesn’t make it Liberal.Our biggest weakness is the lack of clarity about what we stand for & this campaign just muddies the water even more.
We all want to stand up to Trump but there are other ways of doing that.
A portion of beef creates a 15kg CO2 impact. Lamb about 6, chicken 2, beans 0.1.
Moving 1kg of anything in a container ship is negligible.
Buying local and buying British, where possible, supports the local economy/jobs, allows local/domestic companies develop and prosper, is better for the environment in reducing emissions/reduces traffic and supports a community spirit etc. It is not populism or protectionist.
Exactly Jenny..The amount of Co2 in transporting that beef is negligible compared to what it’s emitted during its lifetime. Stable door bolted etc …
I do not think it is fair to regard Ed’s “Buy British” call as a permanent lurch into protectionism. It is directly related to a current absolute necessity – countering Trump.
@Tristan Ward – Agree, the polluting producer pays so that the costs are factored into the price of their product, thereby permitting the consumer to choose, rather than be forced to pay for the clean up.
@Jenny @Craig
The CO2 produced by animals is short cycle CO2, burning fossil fuels is long cycle CO2 and the real cause of our current climate problems.
@Mick Taylor – Agree, we should be producing more, which basically means zero greenfield development. Interestingly local to me the community are objecting to a proposed development as it is on grade 2 arable farmland. I suspect it will go to appeal and the locals branded as “nibby’s”. Likewise we are objecting to a “solar farm” because it too is taking away grade 2 arable farmland and is a rather pointless development given the amount of roofs without solar panels.
We have had this argument about tariffs for over 200 years. I agree with Cobden and Bright and the Anti Corn Law League. Setting campaign songs to music is older still. This hymn to free trade was to be sung to the tune of ” King of the cannibal islands” .
“Attend a while and you shall hear,
The glorious day is drawing near,
When you may banish grief and care.
They must abolish the Corn laws;
The evil we have encountered long,
Petitions to the throne does throng
The nation is excited strong.
And every class is now among,
The men of note the people’s friends,
Who vowed they’d struggle until when
Monopoly was at an end,
And they’s abolish the Corn Laws.
CHORUS
Huzza! huzza! the time is come,
Open the ports it must be done,
The landlords fine career is run,
They must abolish the Corn Laws.”
“Likewise we are objecting to a “solar farm” because it too is taking away grade 2 arable farmland and is a rather pointless development given the amount of roofs without solar panels.”
More tricky decisions. Food security matters, but (clean) energy security matters too, probably just as much. We all know trump is trying to force other countries to buy (dirty) energy from the US, and the reason why energy prices have increased so quickly over the last few years is because of dependence on Russia for (dirty) energy.
We need large amounts of clean energy as quickly as possible. Yes all new developments should have solar panels fitted as standard (note how Labour voted down Max Wilkinson’s bill) but is that really going produce the energy we need quickly enough to reduce dependence on Trump/Putin/the Middle East and get the Net Zero as quickly as is needed?
>” More tricky decisions.”
Not really.
If you are serious about energy security and addressing energy poverty, the biggest bang for your buck solution is to put solar panels on millions of roofs. Solar panels on farmland etc are about playing the current system whereby operators get paid the current gas linked market price for their production. Doesn’t change the high price those in energy poverty pay.
Under the current system, there is little reason why a householder should not achieve a 16% pa guaranteed return on investment in solar panels; from some rough maths, given the price national grid pay, solar farm operators can do even better…
If we really want to quickly achieve net zero then it is obvious we stop growing the population (destroy demand for new housing) and massively reduced commuting and in so doing largely destroy the mass market for privately owned cars and reduce overcrowding on the trains… Given the evidence of lockdown, a 30% reduction in energy consumption and greenhouse emissions could be achieved in a matter of months…
Unfortunately, successive Westminster governments have failed to invest in the UK, so the vast majority of those panels will have to be imported…
“The CO2 produced by animals is short cycle CO2, burning fossil fuels is long cycle CO2 and the real cause of our current climate problems”
CO2 doesn’t care where it came from.
@ Jenny Barnes,
“CO2 doesn’t care where it came from”.
This not the correct way to understand the problem. There is a natural CO2 cycle which, for the sake of argument, we can say means 100 times the amount we release into the atmosphere is released naturally. So a superficial argument would be that our contribution doesn’t matter because its only 1% of the total.
Even if the natural environment is still absorbing the same as before the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is still increasing year in year out due to our 1%.
In actual fact, even this may not be a good assumption if the oceans are becoming more acidic and the world’s rainforests are being depleted.
For more detailed explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
A useful reminder from Gwyn Williams that our predecessor party had its greatest successes when standing firm for Free Trade and against tariffs like the Corn Laws. The biggest Liberal triumph in 1906 was an election fought on the big loaf versus the little loaf, or Freed Trade versus protection.
I can see where Ed Davey is coming from, but he’s phrasing it wrong. Not buy British, but don’t buy USA. Stick up for Free Trade, don’t go protectionist.
” There is a natural CO2 cycle which, for the sake of argument, we can say means 100 times the amount we release into the atmosphere is released naturally.”
And if – say – you reduce the amount released naturally, possibly by replacing beef meals with beans, assuming you consider the raising and eating of beef to be natural, by 1%, that would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by exactly as much as by not burning an equivalent amount of coal. One CO2 molecule looks exactly like the next, and has exactly the same greenhouse effect.
@Jenny: The point is that we don’t generally care about short-cycle CO2 because it was generated in the first place by a cycle of processes that removed the CO2 from the atmosphere relatively recently, we know that cycle will repeat, and therefore overall it has zero effect on atmospheric CO2 over a timescale of more than a year or two. That’s why we don’t care about the CO2 we emit in our breath (came indirectly from the plants photosynthesising CO2) or burning plant biomass (was recently grown, also absorbing the CO2 from the atmosphere and as soon as it’s ‘harvested’, more will grow). But we care very much about the CO2 emitted when we burn oil and coal because that was taken from that atmosphere millions of years ago and is not part of any cycle that will quickly remove it from that atmosphere again.
Another way of looking at it: You’re correct that an individual molecule of CO2 doesn’t know where it came from and by itself has the same effect as any other CO2 molecule. But the point is if it’s short cycle CO2 then an equivalent amount of CO2 will quickly be removed from the atmosphere (unless we do something to interrupt the cycle). That won’t happen if it’s long cycle CO2
“Likewise we are objecting to a “solar farm” because it too is taking away grade 2 arable farmland and is a rather pointless development given the amount of roofs without solar panels.”. It is now possible to produce solar panels that absorb in a large range of wavelengths and not in others so combining solar and arable production is entirely possible.
Growing things, like food for humans or feed for cattle, using fertiliser generated from methane gas by the haber-bosch process, diesel tractors, ploughs and combine harvesters : is that “short cycle CO2”? I think not.
@ Simon R,
“CO2 from the atmosphere relatively recently, we know that cycle will repeat, and therefore overall it has zero effect on atmospheric CO2 over a timescale of more than a year or two.”
Forests are cut down in Canada to provide woodchips for use as fuel in UK power stations. The argument is that this is a “bio-fuel” because the trees will regrow. True, but this is more like on a timescale of 50 years.
The “bio-fuel” argument is very much overstretched.
& Jenny
“Growing things, ………….., using fertiliser generated from methane gas by the haber-bosch process, diesel tractors, ploughs and combine harvesters : is that “short cycle CO2””
Feeding 8 billion people (and rising) would be damned difficult without these things.
Typically the methane used in the haber-bosch process to produce the hydrogen comes from cracking hydrocarbons, but it could of course come from electrolysis of water using electricity derived from renewable energy. Either way lots of energy is needed from somewhere to drive the process.
ypically the methane used in the haber-bosch process to produce the hydrogen comes from cracking hydrocarbons, but it could of course come from electrolysis of water..
Correction – I mean the hydrogen could come from electrolysis of water of course.
I see I started something with short and long cycle Carbon.
Good points being made which illustrate how intertwined and thus important oil and gas are to our current lifestyles. It also illustrates why we really need to get a grip on the “low hanging fruit” so that we can “afford” the essential uses of fossil fuels.
I’ve been a believer in using on farm wind turbines to produce fertiliser feedstock; however, really need to do the maths to confirm the viability (ie. How many turbines are needed for a 300 acre arable farm be self sufficient). Yes it’s inefficient compared to other methods, but if it helps to reduce the 2 VLCCs (2m barrel supertanker) of oil the UK consumes every 3 days, plus the gas…
@Peter Davies – Agree there is some important research being published – shame the research isn’t being done in the UK. Which probably explains why UK solar farm installers are still deploying panels as if they are on pitched roofs rather than vertically. Also an array of vertically mounted panels that permit arable farming is a lot harder to hide behind a hedge…
Currently we have a developer pitching an “Energy (business) park”, none of the business units have solar panels or vertical turbines, instead the developer is wanting to put these on adjacent fields – clearly seeing greater profit in separating the two aspects of the development. The other non green aspect of this proposed out of town development is that the only access is via car…
I agree entirely with @Ellyott, buying British has nothing to do with protectionism. However what is also true, and more difficult for Liberals is that if voters in other countries vote for governments that are anti-liberal, then we may need borders to protect ourselves from these governments. I am sure we are all delighted to see the Canadian Liberals leading in the polls at the moment. And what is their slogan? “A stronger Canada”.
Our version of patriotism needs to be backing Britain to compete on the world stage by virtue of its merits. Not relying on protectionist campaigns and the nationalisation of failing industries. As Liberals we should be proud to let the British people reap the rewards of globalisation. We should celebrate the fact that we can eat vegetables from Spain for a reasonable price, especially when this is a more ethical choice than UK assembled factory-farmed meat.
Do we want to give this ground to Labour? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/08/rachel-reeves-rejects-calls-buy-british-campaign-us-tariffs
I refuse to believe that there aren’t votes in supporting an ideology (globalism/liberalism) that used to be so mainstream that it was the consensus amongst the three main parties in British politics.
In reality there is not much in the way of British consumer goods left to buy in our daily lives we have become dependent on US suppliers
“…US multinationals now have annual UK sales of over $700bn, equivalent on a per-household basis to an average of about £20,000 for each UK family. ”
“… our supermarket shelves are dominated by Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s…US private equity now owns Morrisons with its 110,000 staff, and one of the fastest growing retail chains is Costco from Washington State. ”
“Apple and Microsoft dominate supplies of consumer hardware and software, and our payments are almost all made through the US giants Visa and Mastercard. Online, our social lives are largely conducted through Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Twitter, all based in California, while our on-screen entertainment is overwhelmingly created on the West Coast of the US by companies such as Disney and Warner Bros”,
“…we order British goods through Amazon, we book domestic holiday stays through Airbnb, watch films through the Netflix platform, we trade our second-hand goods through eBay and we even meet our partners through US-owned platforms Bumble and Tinder. And behind the scenes virtually all UK data is hosted by the three big US cloud storage companies, AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google”.