Author Archives: Natalie Bird

In November party members will be voting to elect our next Party President. At Lib Dem Voice we welcome posts from each of the candidates – one to launch their candidature (like this one) plus a maximum of one per week during the actual campaign.

Should I receive the nominations, I intend to stand for Party President.

A Truly National Party

I am a Northerner, and it matters deeply to me that our party speaks to—and for—the whole of the UK, not just privileged parts of the South. Too many communities have endured decades of chronic underfunding, leaving structural problems that demand structural solutions.

One of the clearest ways we can drive prosperity is through transport. A railway system that is reliable, punctual, and affordable should be the backbone of opportunity across the country. Transport must be a tool for growth and connection—not a barrier.

Protecting Women’s Rights

I have spent years challenging the party’s internal culture, including taking legal action over discrimination. I won my case for sex discrimination, yet the leadership failed to communicate that outcome clearly to members. Meanwhile, some of those responsible for the problems I raised remain in place, with some even seeking promotion.

We face serious governance issues. We have lost our ability to hold ourselves accountable. Justice must not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy. That is why I will push for expanded access to legal aid, ensuring that ordinary people can seek justice without fear of financial ruin.

Protecting Women’s Rights

Women fought hard for the right to vote, to be heard, and to have single-sex spaces. These rights must never be eroded—by our party or by anyone else. The Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue must be respected and implemented by all councils.

I am also deeply concerned that the party has remained silent on the Cass Review. We still have policy dating back to 2015 promoting puberty blockers for children—despite clear evidence that this is not a safe or appropriate stance. Continuing to endorse unevidenced medical treatment is indefensible. Conference has repeatedly failed to update outdated or unscientific policies. That must change.