On the 7th May, while we made some good gains in Scotland, and held strong in some areas in England, there are many who have left these elections feeling dissatisfied with their current results. While our results show stability and consolidation, this simply doesn’t cut it in regions we were expecting major gains.
Where this can be shown is through London, and as I have been campaigning across London, I have been feeling the dichotomy of jubilation and disappointment many are facing. In spite of a great ground game across London, we fell short in key target areas and this comes down to the national message we project. We can no longer exist as a party on results or simple ground game, but in an era of political whirlwinds we need to project hope through a strong national campaign instead, and project change.
In spite of this, the elections did see some positives. We saw major success stories in Brent and Ealing, with the local parties there making significant gains on Labour. Our ground game all across London was a marvel to watch, and the establishment of a 100% majority in Richmond, as well as maintaining/improving large majorities in Kingston and Sutton is something to champion going forward. These are emblematic of our strong ground game resonating well, when there was a record of results behind them.
However, it is also important to accept the reality of the situation that we have underperformed in many areas, even just in London. Our major target of Merton has fallen flat with only two councillors gained. Also, in Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and my home borough of Croydon, expected gains have somehow evaporated and in some areas, paper candidate Greens in areas like Newham, Barking and Enfield have won without ever campaigning!
This is in spite of a great ground game we put up, and as many regions will tell you we have been mobilising massive numbers to come out and campaign nationally. However, this is time to accept the reality of the situation and that while our ground game nationally was great, our national messaging was off and that’s what this election came down to.
The national messaging we sent out wasn’t bad, however it didn’t do us many favours, either. The national messaging instead was confused, not one of the status quo however not the optimistic overtures of a Reform or Green, and this was our greatest weakness. This election at the end of the day amounted to a referendum on Starmer. People voted for whoever would send a message that the government wasn’t working, and while other parties were resolute in their anti-Starmer message, we didn’t share in such an identity and lost.
This shows in our results, where we look like a party which played on the defensive, consolidating in our strongholds but little expansion past that. Especially up in the North of England we suffered, in areas like Oldham where our vote collapsed to only produce one councillor hanging on by a thread. This also happened in Birmingham, where gains fell short of expectations, yet others would be more fit to comment in these regions. This came down to a poor national message, and gains were hard in new areas where we didn’t have that strong record of action to replace it.
Now how do we move on? In spite of existing shortcomings, we need to use this experience in the future to change our direction. This comes back to our national message, where we need to use our voice to push our strong and ambitious policy, such as the Skills Wallet and Knife Crime policies. If we truly want to expand, we need a strong national message to synthesise the lack of a record of action in new areas we don’t have a massive presence in.
We have the ability to become the party of change, the party that fights not for the abolition of the system but a returning of the UK system to its intentions, to what it was always meant to be. Yet we aren’t, and until we do, we will always remain a party stuck in the background, whether in a two-party system or an all-out brawl. Modern day politics resembles one of national messaging and ambition, and we can no longer simply rely on our amazing ground game to do so. We need to change, and this should be the canary in the mine for such change at the top.
* Johan Prinsloo is London Young Liberals Chair, a member of London Lib Dems events committee, London Regional Executive, and Croydon Local Party Membership Engagement Officer.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A bumper set of of council and Parliamentary by-elections
The Joy of Six 1535
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
Replacement?
David Garlick
Nonconformistradical
Mohammed Amin
Jamie Sharpley
Ian Sanderson (RM3)
15 Comments
Yes, gaining 6 MSPs is significant progress in Scotland but while there remains a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, we have now fallen to become the 4th largest Unionist Party, behind Reform, Labour and the Conservatives.
Perhaps we need to change our position to not oppose a second independence referendum (since we are democrats) while maintaining our intention to campaign for Scotland to remain in the UK should another referendum occur. At least this would differentiate us from other Unionist parties and may attract more transfers from pro-independence voters at next year’s council elections that are held under STV.
Not correct:
“Also, in Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and my home borough of Croydon, expected gains have somehow evaporated”
In Lambeth we went from 3 to 8 seats.
I was introduced to LD as ? Paper candidate only few weeks just before last date of nomination, I believe if there was enough time , induction, training and attendance of seminars the result could have changed .
We need to work out how we influence the media. There are far too many radio and TV programmes which, when mentioning the parties standing, forget to mention us at all.
Thank you Johan for this sobering article. Completely concur with you here. We welcome change
Julian – Get your point, just also know there were target seats in Lambeth we were definitely expecting to win and didn’t. More part of a wider point that in London we fell short in some areas, rather than singling out those regions, and that we got leapfrogged by the Greens in terms of councillors in London.
Very much agree with you Johan. An excellent ground game paired with a strong national message is needed if we are to make further gains across the country.
In Ealing we worked really hard to get 6 new councilors elected (including me). A stronger national message would have resulted in 2 more brilliant candidates getting elected in Ealing Broadway.
The Ealing Green party showed what a strong national message can achieved. Their paper candidates frequently achieved c.1000 votes each without any campaigning, which is very significant as many councillors were on c.1500 votes or less.
Based. Looks like we have the next Mark Pack in the making here. Looking forward to working more with you, Johan. You know who I am.
Julian, your correction is true but pedantic. Just swap out Lambeth for our target campaign in Hackney, won by the Green paper candidates, or indeed Higham Hill in Waltham Forest which had a much better campaign than ours but still met the same fate.
Two things to add:
Firstly the “off the shelf” London leaflet bypassed all of the Green facing messages.
Secondly “Connect” does not have a Green facing canvass.
Ridiculous in both cases
Great post. You need both a ground game and an air war to do well in an election. The problem was that while we have the former, the latter is lacking, which is why Green paper candidates won without campaigning. Think how much easier our jobs would be if a charismatic leader boosted our vote share through TV and radio appearances.
We have made a terrible mistake to think that 72 MPs came about just because of Ed. The more important number is 0.7% – which is the increase in vote share that all those paddle boards and rollercoasters actually secured. Those MPs were elected because they were good candidates, with a great ground game, and a collapse of the Tory vote, not because of stunts, Conversely, with almost no ground game Reform leapfrogged us to get 15% of the vote. We need a better messenger and message at the top.
I have just authored an article which says much the same.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/politically-stagnant-local-elections-2026-reflections-79690.html
All the people I know in London voted green. They all voted Lib Dem or independent in GE. I think labelling the greens as an extremist party like Reform won’t do us much good. I’ve asked a few people why and they like Polanski and don’t care what the media says about him. It’s the same with Farage, people like him regardless of his actions. We have to accept it, they are both liked but are very different.
When the results were announced for the two new unitary authorities in Surrey the TV channels had effectively stopped their election coverage on Friday and the content of Saturday’s newspapers had been written. It was unfortunate because the results for us were very significant. In West Surrey we won 56 of the 90 seats and in East Surrey 40 out of 72. Labour did not win a single seat out of the 162 seats. I think early declarations would have resulted in a different perception of our performance.
Another article well worth reading and thinking about in a world of 5 party politics when coalitions are inevitable: ignore the author and the location. Consider in particular:
“A key part of our revival after the 1945 landslide defeat was absorbing liberals.”
“Conservatism is …………….especially after the incorporation of many Liberals, about free markets, property rights, mobility, and economic growth. ” We need to take back these Liberal clothes from the Conservative party if we want to extinguish them.
“It would be very bad indeed for Conservatives if we seemed to be destined to be a junior partner in a Reform led Coalition. ………… It would put off voters who see us as the last bastion of protection against Reform”
A Liberal who is not an economic liberal is only half a Liberal. And a Liberal who is not a Social Liberal is only half a Liberal as well.
https://conservativehome.com/2026/05/12/david-willetts-the-conservatives-are-actually-good-at-coalitions-but-under-their-own-name/
Another article well worth reading in a world of 5 party politics: ignore the author and the location. Consider in particular:
“A key part of our revival after the 1945 landslide defeat was absorbing liberals.”
“Conservatism is …………….especially after the incorporation of many Liberals, about free markets, property rights, mobility, and economic growth. ” We need to take back these Liberal clothes from the Conservative party if we want to extinguish them.
“It would be very bad indeed for Conservatives if we seemed to be destined to be a junior partner in a Reform led Coalition. ………… It would put off voters who see us as the last bastion of protection against Reform”
A Liberal who is not an economic liberal is only half a Liberal. And a Liberal who is not a Social Liberal is only half a Liberal as well.
https://conservativehome.com/2026/05/12/david-willetts-the-conservatives-are-actually-good-at-coalitions-but-under-their-own-name/