Ed Davey did his traditional start of year interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg this morning. The conversation started with Donald Trump backing down on his disgraceful comments about British troops in Afghanistan.
Ed said he was grateful to the King for his intervention but said that this didn’t change his view of Donald Trump who has supported Putin on Ukraine.
They moved on to discuss defence spending. Ed acknowledged that we do need to act.
Liberal Democrats have argued that we need to increase defence spending. We’ve called on the Government to issue war bonds. The Government hasn’t shown how to increase defence spending by the end of the decade.
We’re in a cold war type scenario.
We need to increase defence spending quickly.
There has to be a question on whether we can rely on the US. With Trump in the White House they are no longer a reliable ally.
Kuenssberg asked him how this would work? Was it Govt borrowing with a fancy name on it?
Ed said that we should do this over two years and cap it at £20 billion
Institutional investors and public would be able to buy these to give the defence industry needs to know that the money is behind it to make plans.
So let’s just step away from the interview for a moment. This seems to be another example of a new policy being announced – a bit like the 7 day guarantee for GP appointments – without any sort of due process in the party. There have been plenty opportunities to talk about, to consult on such an idea internally. Given the amount of surprise I am picking up in the party about today’s announcement, I feel that this could have been handled better
It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but there are ways of ensuring that there is buy-in from the party before making an announcement like this. Then you avoid people feeling like they are being disrespected. There have been concerns about power being grabbed to the centre with no accountability for some time.
Back to the interview now, Ed said that there were other things we need to do on defence given the dramatic changes since the last election which requires a step change. He wants to see things like pushing the Joint Expeditionary Force further and faster and invite Canada to join it.
Kuenssberg asked him whether we were avoiding a conversation on the amount we are spending on welfare and the NHS
Ed replied:
We are up for these conversations. We have talked about a digital services tax, a European rearmanent bank and we have called for cross party talks on how we get (defence spending) up to 3.5% beyond 2030.
Ed has been pretty bullish on his language on Trump, much more than Starmer has been. Kuenssberg asked him if he would be the same if he were PM. Would he call him a bully and an international gangster
My language might be a bit more nuanced but my approach would be the same.
He highlighted areas where the UK Government could do more, such as rejoining the Customs Union.
How did Trump back down on Greenland? EU standing together with a bazooka of retaliatory measures.
Trump is so unpredictable. I really worry for America – he is doing huge damage to their economy and their world standing.
He was then challenged on our glacially improving poll ratings and the fact that we have only a third or so of the members of Reform and the Greens. – we have ten times the number of MPs but Green at 170,000 and Reform on 210,000. Ed pretty much said he didn’t care about either.
Our membership, he said, was the same as when we won our record number of MPs.
Membership is not the key metric I am focused on. Membership increased in Labour under Corbyn and they had their worst electoral defeat ever.
He pointed out that we had done best in local government by-elections. Winning was the most important part of our mission:
We have a moral obligation to win – I want us to win more seats to stop Reform and the Conservativves. We are doing that well – we had our best result for over 100 years
I’m about exciting voters when they go to the ballot box. We won more by-elections than anyone else last year.
I want to win to deliver the fair deal we promised at the General Election to help people to afford to live a decent life and to have public services we can rely on. We are the only party with a plan to fix things and rescue our NHS. We need to stop Farage and the Conservatives, a coalition of chaos who would damage our democracy, possibly for ever.
While this is a fair enough aim, I wish he’d managed to shoehorn in how well we are going to do in Scotland and Wales in May. Also, members are pretty vital in terms of income and capacity to deliver said mission.
My worry is that we haven’t yet got that story that we need to sell to the electorate. We did very well in 2024 and that was in large part down to the campaigning infrastructure that Ed had built and the work that had been going on to establish many of our MPs as local champions. He managed to establish himself as a positive force in the election.
However, I feel like there is not enough humility round our 2024 success. Ed’s strategy was aimed at winning 30-40 seats. The rest were delivered to us through good luck and the total implosion of the Conservative Party. People wanted to vote for whoever would beat them.
What we did before is not going to be enough in 2028/9. We need to articulate and sell our distinctive vision of how we operate in a much more dangerous and unpredictable world. There is much still to be done on that point. I am increasingly worried about decisions being made by a small number of people outside the accountability structures in the party. Keeping power in the hands of a few people does not tend to end well. The SNP is currently learning this lesson. For years a small cabal controlled everything they did. They are now drowning in the tears that strategy ended in. We need to make sure that doesn’t happen to us.
We’re actually doing that a lot better in Scotland, where I have never seen us so motivated and prepared for an election campaign. Our “change with fairness at its heart” message and the sheer amount of work that is going on around the country and our clear ask for votes on the regional list ballot paper baked into the campaign strategy rather than added as an afterthought the week before polling day as it has been in the past.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sparrows Can't Sing Q&A with Barbara Windsor and Murray Melvin
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Peter Martin
Richard Flowers
George Thomas
Tristan Ward
Chloe
29 Comments
Kuenssberg asked him (Ed) whether we were avoiding a conversation on the amount we are spending on welfare and the NHS.
Good question.
I repeat a past Comment I humbly made that Ed should visit target seats and focus in on the NHS. Has he the ammunition to do so? The media are negative about the NHS. Comments by patients are more positive. We can be proud of local GPs and Community Nursing. Ed’s experience as a carer is proven.
“We need to stop Farage and the Conservatives, a coalition of chaos who would damage our democracy, possibly for ever.”
“While this is a fair enough aim…”
If this is only a “fair enough” aim, I’m not sure Caron has realized how high the stakes are.
We face the prospect of Nigel Farage coming Prime Minister – a man who calls Trump his friend, admires Putin and says he has taken “amazing inspiration” from the MAGA movement. This when the US state is snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile it seems the US is withdrawing support from Europe while we are under threat from the east. It is our duty to stop Farage and his gang.
“We need to articulate and sell our distinctive vision ……. in a much more dangerous and unpredictable world”
I agree. Mark Carney has done us a service here. His distinctively liberal and democratic vison needs to be honed to fit the UK’s circumstances. That means more military spending quickly and joining the single market and customs union.
We must accept that Britain is not as rich as we think we are, all against the background of an ecological crisis that must be addressed. We have to take great care on spending commitments when so many people feel they are over taxed, and that the tax they do pay is not being spent effectively.
With luck Conference will come to these kinds of conclusions. Meanwhile the leadership has to respond to events if it is to get any kind of publicity at all.
Instead of focusing on war bonds, why not stick with our campaign for closer relations with the EU? As we know, the House of Commons library found closer relations (including the customs union) could generate up to £90 billion pounds a year of extra revenue from economic growth for the Treasury? Not only would that fill the defence black hole several times over, it would help increase funding for the NHS, education, affordable housing etc. We need clear and consistent messaging.
“Membership is not the key metric I am focused on. Membership increased in Labour under Corbyn and they had their worst electoral defeat ever.”
Whilst this is standard fare from Labour, the Tories and most of the press, the leader of a party that, at least on paper, considers our current electoral system to be deeply unrepresentative and undemocratic should be deeply ashamed of using such ridiculous soundbites. Aside from that, is he really saying there’s an inverse causal link between membership and electoral performance under our joke of an electoral system? Because that’s also ludicrous.
“This seems to be another example of a new policy being announced – a bit like the 7 day guarantee for GP appointments – without any sort of due process in the party”.
How would you make that work and what’s wrong with a 7 day guarantee for GP appointments ? What sort of ‘due process’ would that be ?
Is the Party Leader not to be allowed to introduce a new policy or float a bit of creative thinking on a day to day basis between General Elections without some sort of referendum or plebiscite of the ever fluctuating party membership or it’s (democratically elected ?) administrative post holders ?
As someone who first joined the Liberal Party way back in the early 1960’s I think I know how Jo Grimond (and later Paddy Ashdown) would have reacted to that – and yonks ago – I don’t think Gladstone/C.B./Asquith/LLG would have been much amused by it.
German Chancellor on EU growth – not to sure where that £90 billion is going to come from Nick..
“Both Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential for growth in recent years by dragging feet on reforms and unnecessarily and excessively curtailing entrepreneurial freedoms and personal responsibility. We are going to change that now.
We must reduce bureaucracy substantially in Europe,” Merz continued. “The single market was once created to form the most competitive economic area in the world. Instead, we have become the world champion of over-regulation. That has to end.”
I think the benefit of war bonds is that they would encourage some people to save who perhaps wouldn’t otherwise have saved. That could allow more money to be spent on defence in a way that isn’t so inflationary – removing some money from other parts of the economy in way that (unlike increasing tax) feels entirely voluntary. So economically they could be good. And politically, they’ll help to convey the sense of the threat we are under from Russia – which is something that I fear not enough people appreciate.
The (huge) disadvantage is that that we don’t have a specific aim to achieve: It’s just a time-unbounded desire to increase defence spending. Contrast that with WWI and WWII when the aim was to win an actual current actual war, and you could clearly see what the hoped for outcome was. Without that specific aim, the risk is that war bonds will come to term in a few years leaving the Government in more debt and with the threat from Russia unchanged – so nothing material to show from the bonds, and no way to sustain the increased defence spending.
We’d need much more careful thought about what specific (and time-limited) thing we want to achieve before war bonds would make a sensible policy.
I agree with Caron that more consultation within the party would’ve been good. Though I’m not sure how you achieve that without the risk of another party ‘stealing’ the policy.
Caron, we call out for publicity, policy and getting on the media. Here this has happened.
Let us not be too precious, it is what we have been crying out for.
@ Simon,
Whilst I disagree with your comment about Russia (Population 145 million, GDP about the same as Italy) being much of a threat to Western Europe, your comments about the economics of buying war bonds are correct.
You could have added that to sell the bonds adds to the National debt. So therefore it must follow that an increase in the ND is potentially deflationary whereas a fall is potentially inflationary.
Most people think its the other way around.
@David Raw, I doubt that Gladstone or Asquith would have had to bother about a constitution making their conference the sovereign policy making body.
@Theakes This was nothing exceptional – the usual beginning of year interview
Does the UK have control if it’s nuclear weapons? Or does the USA have the right to stop the UK using them?
Is the UK nuclear arsenal independent?
@Stephen: “is he really saying there’s an inverse causal link between membership and electoral performance under our joke of an electoral system?” He might be acknowledging that the targeting strategy that has helped us win under the current system has not helped us in recruiting and retaining members. The leadership does seem to have noticed this and there seem to be some serious effort since the election to reverse the decline of our detargetted areas.
@ Caron, I don’t suppose they did, Caron, though Home Rule and the 1892 ‘Newcastle Programme’ ruffled a few feathers and led to splits. Squiff and the GOM just got on with governing without having to fall in the water – and CB didn’t hesitate to call out ‘methods of barbarism’. Leaders are expected to lead.
Can you imagine the hoots of tabloid & Kuenssberg derision if Sir Edward had said, “I might just support introducing War Bonds in a few months time if my Federal Committee approve it”, and “I’ll get Putin & Trump to go on holiday for a few months to give the Committee time to think and research it.”.
War Bonds were a voluntary investment and a well researched subject especially in relation to WW1. The research shows (unsurprisingly) that ‘Middle England’, being far wealthier, quite rightly and unsurprisingly, invested much more per head than Scotland did. They could afford to, Some things don’t seem to change.
Just for the record, I thought Sir Edward did quite well today.
The discussion between Caron and David is quite illuminating, but I think David has his finger on the pulse.
As they say Conference makes policy and takes ages but leaders take decisions and make headlines. Those of us around at the time, remember decisions made by Nick in coalition that were not policy and on occasions were actually against policy – Tuition Fees being one of them. The prevailing philosophy most party leaders has been ‘It is easier to make a decision and ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission and make a consensus’, and Nick like others did that repeatedly. Whether the decision is constitutional or not is immaterial. In the real world things happen much quicker than a committee can cope with and as far as the media is concerned the leader is the embodiment of the party and that is it. Ultimately we can’t undo that and no written constitution can prevent it. We can only rely on a leader’s judgement.
Personally, I was particularly disillusioned when Ed shortly after becoming leader announced we were not seeking to rejoin the EU. Not because he didn’t have the right to do it, but because it undermined a stance we were right on and even more one where it would become ever more clear that we were right as Johnson made an ever bigger mess of things. Thankfully the memory of what we did before that proved stronger and the press have largely forgotten Ed’s pronouncement.
, I was particularly disillusioned when Ed shortly after becoming leader announced we were not seeking to rejoin the EU. ……… Thankfully the memory of what we did before that proved stronger and the press have largely forgotten Ed’s pronouncement.”
Actually Party policy is and remains that Britain should rejoin the EU. See- the latest election manifesto. Equally policy is – correctly in my opinion – very cautious.
” the press have largely forgotten Ed’s pronouncement.”
“Thankfully the memory of what we did before that proved stronger and the press have largely forgotten Ed’s pronouncement.”
Of course- it is in the interests of the nationalists to have their press to portray us as bunch of Europe loving Britain hating defiers of democracy.
What events are showing is that Britain’s interests are best served by liberal prescriptions: the rule of law and respect for human rights, international cooperation with those with those whose interests coincide, properly regulated free trade and markets and the like.
@ Joey Vimsante Poet ~
“Does the UK have control if it’s nuclear weapons? Or does the USA have the right to stop the UK using them? Is the UK nuclear arsenal independent?
The UK has partial control of its nuclear weapons but, unlike the French weapons, they cannot be said to be truly independent.
The UK government claim “operational independence” for Trident submarines but given that the missiles depend on US guidance systems which the US govt can presumably switch on and off at will, it clearly doesn’t mean much at all.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/
Talking about winners, today we have had another sad result – the inquest into the death of retired footballer Gordon McQueen (defender, Manchester United/Leeds United, and Scotland). The inquest concluded Mr McQueen died as a result of repeated heading of a football. He is one of the many cases which have come to light in recent years.
To quote BBC News “if you’re a football player, there’s nothing quite like the rush of leaping towards a ball hurtling towards you at great speed, heading it into the net, and scoring a goal for your team. Yet evidence is mounting that doing so repeatedly can lead to brain damage that manifests decades later as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease”.
I gather Anna Sabine MP is the party spokesperson for Sport. Could I suggest she examines this, takes it up with the FA and FIFA football authorities to research, and, if necessary, to exclude heading as part of the game, not just at a professional level but at all levels especially in schools ?
Life is precious and too short. As Brian Clough used to say, “”If God had wanted us to play football in the clouds, he’d have put grass up there”.
Regarding Ed’s comments about membership, here’s a philosophical question. If we have to choose between a small, centralised party who are good at winning elections, and a mass membership party where tens of thousands feel involved in the political process but perhaps we had fewer MPs and councillors, which would you choose ?
@Greg Hyde was unsure from where I got the £90 billion extra from closer links with the EU. He should
refer to the party’s 25/11/25 press release “Revealed: Brexit costing the UK £250m a day in lost
Tax revenue”. £250m x 365 = £91,250,000. More
than fills the defence black hole not to mention thousands of potholes etc.
That should read £91,250,000,000!
Hi Chris,
You pose an interesting question, but one which implies that the two scenarios you put forward are the only two to be considered.
My preferred scenario would be a mass membership party where hundreds of thousands feel involved in the political process and is also good at winning elections. The key question is how do we get from where we are now to where we want to be.
Whatever the whole answer is, a lot of it will involve hard work and traditional Lib Dem acceptance that every one of us knows we are never absolutely right on everything, and so a willingness to compromise (i.e. balance as in the Preamble) different viewpoints will be key.
Caron, thank you for this ❤️
Now that we have the largest party in the House of Commons since whenever it was, it would be interesting to know if the said parliamentary party), which presumably has a regular pattern of meetings, discusses policy issues beyond those thrown upHouse of Commons business for the next week. Is it a useful sounding board for the leadership or am being naive on this one?
Sorry – up by
The interesting thing about @Chris Cory’s dilemma is that it somewhat describes both Labour and the Tories: Since 1945, Labour has tended to be be mass-membership party that wasn’t very good at winning elections, and the Tories have tended to be a highly centralised smaller party that was good at winning elections. Labour dabbled with the Tory approach under Blair and I guess you could argue we and Labour both did that in 2024.
Maybe we need a third way 😈
(OK, OK I’ll get my coat…)
“Is the Party Leader not to be allowed to introduce a new policy”
Fundamentally no.
S7.1 of the Federal Constitution:
“The Federal Party shall determine the policy of the Party in those areas which
might reasonably be expected to fall within the remit of the federal institutions
in the context of a federal United Kingdom.”
If you disagree with that then that is legitimate point of view to hold and you should propose a constiutional amendment to that effect.
@Simon The Conservative Party used to be easily the biggest party with membership probably exceeding 5m at some point. It also won a lot of elections. It was very good at fundraising and had a thriving social side (apparently that’s why Kemi Badenoch joined). It was not highly centralised at an organisational level but it had a lot of local professional staff.
David, as I think you know, Hwyel is quite right when he points out that the constitution says ““The Federal Party shall determine the policy of the Party in those areas which
might reasonably be expected to fall within the remit of the federal institutions in the context of a federal United Kingdom.”
However when an important issue arises that is not really covered by a party policy that has gone through conference, the party leader will know the question will be raised ‘Are the Lib Dems in favour of such and such a proposal?’ and he/she will need an answer. As we know, the Lib Dems, not being extreme on many issues, rarely get asked, but if we answered with an “I can’t say. Conference hasn’t decided”, we would get asked even less often. Of course this happened regularly throughout coalition and Nick (with his closest advisers) had to make that call.
So we have two parallel systems – one where members believe that Conference passes policy motions which are never implemented and another where the leader makes decisions which are implemented and the media treat as policy but we pretend is not.
I think George Orwell called it doublethink.
I see Daisy Cooper was pushing “the Lib Dem idea of War Bonds” at PMQ’s today.
Should she have waited for Spring Conference approval ?