Author Archives: David Vigar

David Vigar

The far-right nightmare looms. What are we doing about it?

By David Vigar | Mon 11th May 2026 - 9:02 am

Am I alone in thinking our response to the local election results is a little too self-congratulatory? Of course we should broadcast our success in increasing our councillor count yet again and congratulate everyone who worked hard to make it happen.

But for me, the main message of the elections is that Britain now faces the nightmare prospect of a far-right totalitarian government. William Hill now has Reform 11-10 on to win the most seats in 2029. The next takeaway is that we, the Liberal Democrats, have a critical role in stopping it.

Almost exactly a year ago, Lib Dem Voice ran a piece that I wrote after the 2025 local elections when I was part of a winning team in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, beating Reform into second place in six out of seven divisions.

There, we developed an anti-Reform playbook based on our doorstep experiences. It included some rebuttal of Reform claims – to make people pause for thought – but more importantly, it offered a positive alternative in the shape of strong candidates and their vision for the town. Reform appealed to the worst instincts of voters. We appealed to the best.

Reform also appeal to the heart rather than the mind, so the response has to be directed to the same place. Logic doesn’t work – no more than it does with someone who’s fallen in love with a rat.

Last year I wrote that this needed a proper strategy, “a solid and well-researched plan for the rest of this Parliament”. I sent that blog to senior party members and I was told that action was underway. We even had a “Reform Watch” group. Anyone heard of it? It seems to be a self-help group for councillors, anything but a national campaign.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 14 Comments
David Vigar

With one bound….? Starmer’s Houdini act

By David Vigar | Fri 24th April 2026 - 11:00 am

What just happened at Westminster? Does anyone else think Keir Starmer played MPs and the media like a violin this week?

On Monday, I thought at least one MP would ask the simple and obvious question. “Why did the PM appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington nine days after receiving a briefing that informed him that: ‘Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail in 2009.’”

Surely that explosive sentence should have been enough, if not to block the appointment, at least to postpone it pending investigation.

The sentence, from a report by JP Morgan, speaks volumes. It indicates that Mandelson not only knew Epstein, but knew him well enough to stay in his house.  It shows that Mandelson stayed there when the owner was in prison for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18 – and when he was the UK Business Secretary. That suggests a close and unethical relationship. It also suggests Mandelson remained willing to take huge risks, not learning from his two previous dismissals from Cabinet.

The briefing, titled Advice to the Prime Minister, is dated 11 December 2024 and is available among the documents released by the government.

It repeated JP Morgan’s comment that Epstein had a “particularly close relationship” with Mandelson. And it contained a copy of an email from Mandelson to Tony Blair’s office in 2002 where he calls Epstein his friend and says he is “young and vibrant” … and “safe”.

Red flags waving. Alarm bells ringing. Massive issue. All ignored.

So how did Starmer dodge that smoking gun this week? First, he brushed over it. Second he found a smokescreen.

In his statement, he covered the briefing thus: “A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December.”

Hang on … So Mandelson answered questions the day before Starmer received the brief?  So what did he say?  The briefing is silent.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 9 Comments
David Vigar

How do we deal with Reform?

By David Vigar | Thu 8th May 2025 - 9:30 am

Canvassing last month in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, we came across a middle-aged woman in her garden. “I’ve had enough of all of you. I’m voting Reform”, she said.

Our candidate, Julie, calmly explained that it was a local election and a chance to vote for someone who would work hard for residents on planning, potholes, housing and other issues. Reform didn’t have much to say about those things. And Julie also observed that while she was out meeting people, the Reform candidate was nowhere to be seen.       

A week or so later, when we were visiting postal voters, I knocked on the same woman’s door, inevitably with some trepidation. But it was good news. She’d thought about what we had said. She hadn’t been canvassed by Reform. And she voted for Julie because she’d met her and liked her.

So that’s one way to win over a potential Reform voter. And there are others. For some, a reminder that the Lib Dems are the party of carers, with a leader who is himself a carer, provides a positive alternative. For others, pointing out that Farage thinks Putin is the most admirable world leader prompts a rethink. 

So the rise of Reform creates both an opportunity and a challenge. As Ed Davey has pointed out, we’re seeing a surge in people joining the party because they are worried by Reform and believe we stand for true British values – compassion, tolerance, environmentalism and internationalism. That’s the opportunity.

But it should not stop there. We need to step up to the challenge of stemming the rise of Reform. As we found on the doorsteps, not all Reform voters are nasty people. There are some outright racists out there, and some very angry characters, but also a lot of decent folk who feel left behind, don’t know much about politics and are attracted by simple but misleading messages. I’m sure others met voters who were choosing between Reform and us. The risk is that more of this group will fall for the Farage narrative. Our task is to figure out what will appeal just as powerfully to the positive side of their nature. As the examples above show, it can be done. It works. Julie is now a County Councillor.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 12 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tom Bailey
    Daniel Walker, I'm fully aware of how the EU elective system works, and the point is that European voters are not allowed any direct access to that process. [ p...
  • Daniel Walker
    @Tom Bailey "instead of the white/black smoke system used to choose Pope von der Leyen" The President of the European Commission is nominated by the European...
  • Tom Bailey
    I like the sound of STV elections. Why not start the process by convincing the EU to use that system instead of the white/black smoke system used to choose Pope...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    Mark, I notice other comments have not made it and in truth there is no reason for me to derail this thread. But I genuinely believe there are a significant num...
  • Hywel
    Paul - what was this. It isn't on the wikipedia page of polls. Not surprised by the lack of commentary - the slow but noticeable down-tick in reform poll rati...