Today, a Liberal Democrat friend suggested that perhaps the best way forward for our party would be to enter into a coalition with Labour.

It was an interesting proposition. Could the two parties work together? What might they achieve? What compromises would be necessary? And what would happen to our political identity?

But as I explored these possibilities, I realised that a much more fundamental question had emerged.

Before we decide whom we might govern with, shouldn’t we first be absolutely clear about what we want to govern for?

This is not an argument against coalition government. It is an invitation to examine the identity, purpose and future direction of the Liberal Democrats.

We have policies on healthcare, social care, education, housing, taxation, climate change, Europe and constitutional reform. Many reflect longstanding liberal principles. But having individual policies is not necessarily the same as communicating a coherent political vision.

What connects them? What kind of society are we seeking to create? What distinguishes our approach from Labour, the Conservatives and the Greens?

And, perhaps most importantly, can ordinary people recognise our liberal values in the practical solutions we offer to their everyday problems?

Pensions, social care and difficult choices

I have recently written two articles concerning pensions and social care, questioning how we can protect older people while building a sustainable and fair system for future generations.

The debate surrounding the pension triple lock illustrates the difficult choices facing our party. Protecting pensioners from poverty is essential, but we must also consider fairness between generations, pensioners with different financial circumstances and increasing pressures on public finances.

Frozen income tax thresholds are also bringing more pensioners into taxation, sometimes unexpectedly.

Our proposals for free personal care and a more coordinated national system are substantial commitments. But how will they be financed? How will we recruit and retain the necessary workforce? How will local authorities be supported? And how will we ensure that public resources are managed efficiently and transparently?

An NHS free at the point of use and an accessible social care system are essential objectives. Delivering them requires credible financial and administrative arrangements.

What does modern liberalism offer?

For me, liberalism has always been about human dignity, individual freedom, social responsibility and equality of opportunity.

But how do we translate those principles into a programme for modern Britain?

What does liberalism mean to a pensioner worried about an unexpected tax bill? To a family unable to find suitable housing? To an unpaid carer struggling to cope? To a young person who cannot afford a home?

These are not abstract political questions. They are the realities of people’s lives.

Politics is not simply about identifying what is wrong. It is about explaining what we would do differently, how we would pay for it and how we would ensure that our proposals work.

Coalition, compromise and political identity

Returning to my friend’s original suggestion, several possibilities deserve consideration.

A formal coalition could allow Liberal Democrats to influence government decisions directly. Confidence-and-supply arrangements or issue-by-issue cooperation could provide alternative ways of achieving reform while retaining greater independence.

Labour currently has a parliamentary majority, so an immediate coalition would be a different proposition from negotiations following a future general election.

We must also remember the lessons of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition between 2010 and 2015.

Participation in government creates opportunities to implement policy, but it can also demand compromises that are difficult to defend. The controversy over university tuition fees demonstrated that clearly.

What objectives would justify entering another coalition? Which commitments should be non-negotiable? How would we remain accountable to our members and voters?

Electoral reform and the purpose of power

Proportional representation remains an important Liberal Democrat commitment. It reflects the principle that parliamentary representation should correspond more closely to voters’ choices.

A more proportional electoral system could change how parties cooperate and governments are formed. But it would also require clear accountability and transparent coalition agreements.

There is also a distinction between being a party of government and being a party capable of influencing government.

We can achieve change through legislation, parliamentary scrutiny, local government and cooperation across political boundaries. Ministerial responsibility offers different opportunities, alongside different obligations.

The question is not simply whether we should seek power, but what we would use that power to achieve.

A conversation worth having

I began with a friend’s suggestion that we should consider a coalition with Labour. I ended up asking a much more fundamental question.

What is the purpose of the Liberal Democrats in British politics today?

Are we sufficiently clear about the society we want to create? Are we connecting our principles to people’s everyday concerns? Can we explain how our proposals will be financed, managed and delivered?

And are we encouraging enough open debate within our party about these questions?

Asking difficult questions is not disloyalty. It is essential to a healthy democratic party.

Our liberal tradition deserves continued examination, renewal and debate.

Before asking with whom we might govern, we must be clear about what we want to achieve when we govern.

* Maria Linforth-Hall is a former Southwark Councillor 2014-26