It was buried in the depths of The Economist’s ‘2026 Outlook’, and I almost missed it. Could there really be a Liberal Democrat leadership election in 2026? It feels an odd thing to say, 17 months after the party went from 15 to 72 seats, albeit far more off the back of the abject performance of the Conservatives than from our own good works.
The Economist said, “Yet not all in Lib Dem land are content. A private discussion about Sir Ed’s suitability will become a public one. Some MPs are fed up that the party continues to plod along, neither a party of power nor a party of protest, but instead a symbol of mild discontent in England’s most prosperous parts … Perhaps 200 seats could be theirs for the taking with a suitably determined leader. Sir Ed is not that man.”
My first reaction was “surely not,” but events in the past couple of weeks have made me think it’s not entirely out of the question.
Take Ed’s criticism of the ‘mansion tax’ in Rachel Reeves’ budget. Liberals are traditionally in favour of making the wealthiest pay their fair share, and in an era of pronounced inequality that need is stronger than ever. We have also advocated certain taxes targeting the wealthiest in society. Reeves’ tax on houses over £2m in value is hardly revolutionary, but it’s a decent start. Yet Ed condemned it, incurring the wrath of many within the party.
Two days later, Daisy Cooper described Reeves’ 3p per mile for electric vehicles (EVs) as “the wrong measure at the wrong time” on Radio 4’s Any Questions. I have worked in transport economics, and we’ve known for years that some form of charge on EVs will be inevitable once they start eating into the state’s take from petrol and diesel duty. Putting it at 3p (less than half the cost of current fossil fuel tax) with a couple of years’ warning strikes me as eminently sensible. And distance-based charging is the best way of not penalising people for having a car, merely incentivising them to make best use of other transport when that makes more sense (like walking, cycling, or public transport in urban areas). Daisy could have argued it’s the wrong time, but it’s most certainly not the wrong measure.
These two reactions almost felt like they came from a playbook of “if the focus groups say the chancellor’s measures will be unpopular, we must criticise them.” That doesn’t feel like good Liberal politics, and it’s out of step with the Zeitgeist.
We live in a time when it’s becoming very hard to counter the right-wing populists. If there have been a couple of optimistic signs in 2025, they have been the wins for D66 in the Netherlands and Zohran Mamdani in New York. Both took on the right-wingers with bold policies that fired up young voters who haven’t lost all their idealism. That has to be the route for us, not a philosophy of “say little, offend no-one, and harvest the protest votes.”
A leadership election is still unlikely, if only for the lack of clear alternatives. A credible candidate to stand against Ed would have to be from outside the current Lib Dem shadow cabinet, and the question arises as to whether someone from the 2024 intake would come into the frame. Their relative newness would probably count against them, especially with memories still fresh of Nick Clegg becoming party leader just two and a half years after becoming an MP.
Election or not, Ed does need to up his game. People rightly admire his dedication to caring, both personally and politically, but that won’t do it on its own. Since the dynamic Zack Polanski became Green leader, the Greens’ vote has gone up and ours has gone down to 2024 election levels. I’m pretty sure Polanski’s poor grasp of everything from economics to bum-wiping will be found out fairly soon, but if we’re to be the bulwark against far-right populism, Ed must represent something of the D66 insurgency. If he can’t do that, then The Economist’s musings might not be so far-fetched in 2026 after all.
* Chris Bowers is a two-term district councillor and four-time parliamentary candidate. He writes on cross-party cooperation, was the lead author of the New Liberal Manifesto, and is unofficial coordinator of the Yorkists.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Hayley Mills
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Daniel Walker
Peter Martin
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
40 Comments
“Yet Ed condemned it, incurring the wrath of many within the party.”
Did Ed really incur the wrath of “many” in the party? Apart from the usual handful of keyboard warriors – would love to see your evidence of this
If we are going to be ambitious why not aim to form the next Government ? There is a path open to that – an Alliance between Us & The Greens formed at the right time. Right now the combined Libdem/Green vote share is 26%, on its own that would be enough to force Labour into a coalition, a fairly equal one. However there is every chance that the Public would respond well to seeing two Parties working together, as they did in 1981 & that boost could easily give us a majority.
Why not think about this ?
@Paul Barker: apart from the fact that the Greens despise us for bring moderate and reasonable, and our out to destroy us, you can’t simply add the vote shares of two parties to see what a new combined entity would score.
The second preference of most Green activists and voters is Labour, not us. Typical LD second preferences include Labour and Con. Any such LD/Green combo would shed many voters to their second preference parties.
Apart from the nightmare of who would stand down where; who would lead the party. A total non-starter.
I’d rather another alliance with the tories than the current green leadership
I agree with Simon above. The Reeves mansion tax is horribly designed, with the worst features of a ‘slab structure’ (including not taxing properties worth >£5m at anything like a proportionate rate). Far inferior to the long standing Liberal policy of a property tax proportional to land values.
And taking lessons from UK Greens that have shifted to the hard left – or their equivalent in the New York mayoralty (who is single-handedly working to lose the next presidency for the Dems) – is a fools errand, and certainly not something we as Liberals should be doing.
Another alliance with the Tories would see the end of our party and the defeat of all but a handful of the 72 MPs.
As a possible Lib Dem voter, an alliance with either Greens or Tories in their current form would put me off the Lib Dems.
There are things I happen to agree with both Greens and Tories on, but I’d go nowhere near either party as they both have a tendency to entertain crazy untested ideas which wander into their ‘safe-space’ cultural spheres of influence based on who is proposing them, not based on merit, and then promote them and shut their ears to constructive criticism, as if a messiah has come, and as if the degree of their fervour = the degree of their salvation.
Both are factional, erratic and unreliable. Don’t go that way, by either route, or expose yourselves to the collateral damage of dealing with such partners. There’s enough of such toxic nonsense in your own party and Labour already.
Ed has been a good leader in many respects, and I’m one of those who has liked his slightly playful approach to campaigning. What remains a mystery to me is his failure to take the lead in condemning Israel’s massive overreaction to the Hamas attack in 2023, which is now openly being called genocidal. It’s pretty obvious that Netanyahu has calculatedly amplified politicians’ fear of being called antisemitic to quell legitimate criticism of Israel’s treatment of the civilian population of Gaza, and allow it to get away with flouting international humanitarian law to an extent which would be unthinkable for any other so-called ‘ally’ of the UK.
In opinion polls, the British people have said the successive governments of Sunak and Starmer have failed to hold Netanyahu to account, and yet the Liberal Democrat Party under Ed’s leadership has offered only sporadic and weak condemnation of the government’s many failure on this matter.
No party is serious about small business or hospitality. As someone who started a small marketing company, I’ve always been disappointed with the government for treating us like massive companies. Instead of giving us breathing space to grow some funds to invest and hire, they tax every penny of profit. At the same time they allow multinationals to practice price transferring and reduce profits in the UK to pay less tax.
As for hospitality, many countries have ministers for the sector given its contribution to the economy.
Push the government to get tough on transfer pricing and push them to create a minister of hospitality and win millions who share my feelings over.
The respected journalist, Peter Oborne, has recently published a book called Complicit. He makes the case that both Starmer and Sunak are culpable not of merely turning a blind eye to the genocide, but of being actively complicit in what the IDF has done. We’re not going to see either of them in the dock at the Hague (international humanitarian law is never used against the UK or other western countries) but we might at least have expected opposition parties like ours to have put them under pressure. Instead, we have even gone along with the current government making many of its critics over Gaza political prisoners. I refer in particular to the hunger strikers who are currently serving prison sentences (without trial), having tried to stop production at Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems, a duty which under international law is actually the responsibility of the UK government.
Might the attached article be of interest/use to the current and potential L. D leadership persons, members, potential members and followers?
Entitled “The Demise of Social Democracy in the U. S. and U. K”., it factually analyses the harms done to the economies and social fabrics of the two nations/societies which have implemented, and still do implement, the socio-economic consequences of practical Neoliberalism, not least the alienation of so many voters and their children.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/12/16/the-demise-of-social-democracy-in-the-us-and-uk/
Ed was a good leader for 2024, but it is not 2024 anymore.
@ David Blake. That may be the case but I’d still join the tories before the greens
@Sarah Bryson
I take the view that it will be time to replace Ed Davy as leader when it is clear that he is a drag on our vote and when there is a placement who would be better. I don’t believe either of those points have been reached.
Why should we want a per mile EV charge, as opposed to much more sensible congestion charging? Given that roads have to be build strongly enough to take trucks, cars cause very little wear and tear (trucks in contrast should be charged). As an economist and as a liberal, I am pleased Ed and Daisy opposed Rachel Reeves’ tax on EVs
In purely economic terms, you would want to tax all vehicles based on weight and a weighted milage with more congested areas having a multiplier. That requires technology to be retrofitted so you would need a flat rate alternative which was generally more expensive. There should also be a general carbon added tax that created an incentive to decarbonise vehicles (and everthing else). Having a tax solely on EVs makes no sense.
Ideally we should tax road vehicles on the 4th power of their axle loading per mile (road damage) and congestion based on area of road occupied and how busy the road is, plus their CO2 emissions. Ie cover the externalities.
The latest opinion poll puts Reform at 29%, Labour at 18%, The Tories and Greens at 17% and us at 14%.
That would give Reform an overall majority and because of the geographical concentration of our votes we would be the official opposition. That does provide food for thought.
Please get a grip, this is very harsh. It’s looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.
Ed is a lovely man, but, as I have always said, he is not a dynamic leader and does not make any impact.
I agree with just about all the comments in the piece.
I was on the phones for Layla in the leadership election. She has been pushed to one side – I think mainly by Daisy.
She very articulate and would certainly get the Gaza vote.
Zak is convincing a great many people that are fed up with the main couple and are fearful of Reform.
The past achievements and the balanced thoughtful direction of the Liberal Democrats/Liberal are never really explained to people.
Nothing will change with Ed.
Andy Daer. I agree with both your comments, Andy. Yes, I’d have liked Ed to lead us In condemning the ‘massive over-reaction’ of the current Israeli government in its subjection of Gaza, not just demanding resumption of humanitarian supplies. And now, besides rightly condemning the shocking murderous attack on Jews in Sydney, Australia, as he joined Keir Starmer in denouncing at PMQs, why does he not also deplore the increasing attacks by settlers on the Palestinians in the West Bank, the fate of whom seems ignored except by the liberal Media? We can and do sympathise with the increasingly nervous feelings of British Jews, but it is not anti-sematism to deplore the genocidal actions of the Netanyahu government plus its resistance to the idea of a two -state solution. And I would like us also indeed to be expressing disagreement with the imprisonment here of supporters of Palestine Action.
Tim L, You ask the question “Why should we want a per mile EV charge, as opposed to much more sensible congestion charging?” but to me the answer is self evident – All forms of road use charging that varies dependant on location needs hardware installed in or around that location and that is always extremely expensive to implement both financially and politically except for very large cities (like London) or very small areas (like Durham peninsula). That is why, Andy Burnham dropped his ULEZ/CAZ proposals and so there are only a few tiny random examples in odd cities across the entire country, none of which raise more than a few million.
To me sensible doesn’t come into it. If you want to raise serious money, which Labour and the country desperately needs to do, congestion charging is a road to nowhere.
If Ed Davey has a clear democratic mandate inside the party, he should stay. If not he should go. I’m not a party member any more, although his leadership style and bid(s) turned me off mightily around the time I left.
But I think anyone who is seeking to oust him needs a clearer mandate and policy agenda and philosophy than name checking Mamdani and D66 and being vague about ‘zeitgeist’.
Accusing the leadership of being a hollow clique of reactive focus-group-followers but justifying your line with woolly cliquism of your own might work in campaigning terms with a (very) limited circle of insiders, but won’t create real democratic engagement or sustain the real politics of coalition-building and (hopefully) government or negotiating constitutional and policy changes with the broader alliances Chris wants to build.
You cannot change the future on vibes and one or two moments of electoral progress. Clegg learnt that. Corbyn learnt that. Learn it again.
“All forms of road use charging that varies dependant on location needs hardware installed in or around that location and that is always extremely expensive to implement both financially and politically.”
imple
This is not true if the system is rolled out nationwide. Modern cars have onboard systems that are aware of location based information such as speed limits and could be made aware of charge rates. You would need to implement an annual road tax as standard (based on vehicle sise) Anyone with a system able to prove they had used the roads to a lower value than that standard would be able to claim a discount. Initially, it would be taken up by low milage drivers but the standard rate would escalate until most drivers found it worthwhile.
Peter, and for your starter for ten,
How will you get every car manufacturer to amend their car’s onboard system to record this location based information, charge rates etc, make it possible for the car owner to download this information while also making it impossible for the owner or anyone else to tamper with it?
“How will you get every car manufacturer to amend ———— while also making it impossible for the owner or anyone else to tamper with it?”
That is a real problem – because the bad guys will inevitably find a way round the system and tamper with it.
It seems to me that road charging based on location would be extremely difficult and costly to implement.
Even if all ‘modern cars’ have the system the older ones won’t.
“How will you get every car manufacturer to amend their car’s onboard system to record this location based information?”
You wouldn’t have to. At least not initially. There would still be the problem of the existing number of road vehicles to retrofit in any case. The electronics could fit into a small box the size of a small mobile phone (it could actually be considered to be one) which would be fitted with GPS and have internet connectivity to ‘phone home’ at regular intervals.
The system would be backed up with number plate recognition systems on the major roads to ensure that each vehicle was where it was supposed to be!
The technology is already there to do it. Many would say ‘unfortunately’ !
You don’t have to persuade them all. Those that do will give their customers the right to a discount. It would be a selling point. Devices would be retro-fitable but integrating them would make them cheaper. Insurance companies will supply you devices that measure milage, acceleration and braking (a proxy for bad driving). You get a lower rate if you drive seldom and calmly. They don’t seem to be worried about tampering.
@ Peter @ Nonconformistradical
Peter Davies and I agree that neither the cost nor the technology will be a major obstacle in implementing an electronic system for road charging.
It could be much more and in a scary way. For example, any speeding, parking and other traffic offences could be detected by the system and fines immediately applied.
We’d know about them would be when we looked at our credit card statements!
It is not an infrequent comment on online political discussion sites, that the Lib Dems have made little use of their success in establishing a bloc of 72 seats, particularly at a time when the public have fallen out with the two main traditional parties. The two reasons for that are that the party seems to have little sense of purpose or mission, and that Ed Davey lacks the charisma to achieve media attention. The party’s current campaigning stance appears to be that they are the ‘stop Reform ‘ party – a depressingly negative position, and one which begs the question, is Sir Ed suggesting that LD voters should vote tactically for another party, in the 500+ seats in which they have little or no chance of winning? I can’t see an obvious replacement for Davey in the short term – Daisy Cooper would probably replace him if he stood down before the next GE – she’s pleasant enough, but I find her extremely bland, and, other than the short term novelty of being a new face at the helm, would offer little in the way of a fresh start.
Chris Bowers is right to review Ed Daveys performance and question if he will be our choice for leader in 2029 the most likely date for the next general election . most of the political parties have indeed refreshed their leadership not only the Greens , but also Labour and the Conservatives . No one in politics has a job for life .
We do not need to adopt chapter and verse other parties policies but agreed where realistic and encourage them in our direction we are not nor have ever been an opposition for opposition sake party . lets not go there .
This depends on whether Lib Dems see themselves as centrist, left or right of Labour or left of Conservative? Ed refused to deny that he would prop up any minority Labour government after 2029. Labour have wrecked our economy in eighteen months and let the country down with a mere 33.7% of the vote.
@David,
Labour have wrecked our economy in eighteen months.
This is an exaggeration. Not much has changed in the time they’ve been in office. Unemployment is a little on the high side at 5% which to Keynesians would suggest that the Govt fiscal policy is too tight. Nevertheless 5% is not too bad when you look at some of the employment rates in the EU. And you wouldn’t say their economies are wrecked.
The danger is though that Labour will wreck the economy because they , or in particular Rachel Reeves, doesn’t properly understand what happens when she moves the levers of control. Adhering to her so called fiscal rules, to her, is all about reducing the deficit. That never works as might be imagined. In practice it means an ever tightening fiscal policy in pursuit of the uncatchable.
The danger of another 2008 style crash is very real and could come from the USA at any time. So if we have someone in charge when the storm hits who doesn’t know what they are doing………
Russell. Sorry mate, you’re in the wrong party. There is absolutely no way the LibDems will repeat their experiment of a coalition with the Tories. As any deal nears approval by a special conference and I can see no circumstances where any deal with the Tories would be acceptable. On the general theme of coalitions, I do not think the LibDems should make any deal at all without an immediate bill to establish STV for all future elections, before any deal is struck.
What those who think our leadership needs changing, I would say that Ed’s leadership took us to the best third party result in over 100 years. That doesn’t suggest to me that his leadership is lacking. Is charismatic leadership what we need anyway? You should perhaps consider the fable of the hare and the tortoise. Slow and steady wins the race!
@Mick Taylor
If a future election resulted in a hung Parliament with the Tories the leading party and the votes of Liberal Democrat MPs, added to the Tories, making a majority, do you really think we would refuse a coalition deal if immediate legislation to enact STV for subsequent elections was offered for our support?….
So, the idea of a coalition with the Tories is not a complete non-starter.
“do you really think we would refuse a coalition deal if immediate legislation to enact STV for subsequent elections was offered for our support?….” Yes we would refuse, they would never offer it and mathematically, the situation will not arise while Reform has any credibility.
Peter Davies, “the situation will not arise while Reform has any credibility”.
Peter, Reform never has had, does not, and never will have …….. any credibility whatsoever, however many votes it gets or will get.
As things stand, only two overall election winners look plausible in 2028-29. One is Reform, with or without coalition with the rump Tories. The other is an anti-Reform coalition – which to win, would have to mean not only Lib Dems and Greens, but also Labour.
Maybe it will all look different by 2028 – but I wouldn’t bet on that.
So – No point in debating whether the Tories might inveigle the Lib Dems into a 2-party coalition. It just wouldn’t be a winning combination anyway.
No point in picking out faults within the Greens, within Labour, or indeed within the Lib Dems. They all need to come together, irrespective of these faults. The alternative is the British reincarnation of fascism. In the 1930s, Hitler’s opponents squabbled amongst themselves. Let’s not repeat their mistake.
About the economy, labour always plays fast and loose with public money when they over borrow, over spend and over tax. They prefer to tax those in the middle and leave those at the very top, who might shovel money elsewhere. The reds are also riddled with class envy as they detest those who have saved a bit of money for themselves and their families. Same old labour breeding welfare dependency just like they always do.
Thank you to everyone who commented on my piece. I won’t respond to most of them, as it’s all part of the debate, but I do worry that we are being the generals who are fighting the next battle with the tactics that won the last, and that often doesn’t work. Yes, Ed was the leader when we had our best-ever result, but was that causation or just correlation? And is he the right person for 2029? I am not getting at Ed, nor asking us to base our offering on Mamdani or D66, I’m just asking us to think what we need to cut through in 2029 – once we’ve done that, the question of who the best leader would be will be easier to answer. And yes, of course a leadership programme needs to be properly fleshed out, but LDV’s editors try to keep every contribution below 700 words, so pieces here can only be an outline of an idea, with flesh inevitably missing from the bare bones.