Switch on the news and you’d think British politics is a two or three party show… and we’re not one of those. But beyond the red and blue and now turquoise noise, we Liberal Democrats are out there shaping debates, winning councils, and fighting for fairness.
The only problem? You’d hardly know it from the coverage.
So whose fault is that?
Well, I gently suggest, it is both the media’s partly but, yes, also at least in part, our party’s. There’s no doubt that we’re not getting the coverage that the largest third force in the House of Commons deserves and I strongly suggest that editors, producers, reporters, guest bookers etc should have a default position of seeking to book Lib Dems for all political panels, debates, and so so on.
I say ‘seeking’ because, and here’s the rub, I know at least from two national broadcast outlets, that they’ve sought to book a Lib Dem MP for a segment and been told that none is available. That might just about have been believable when we had just 8 MPs but we now have 72 and, as I said at the Social Liberal Forum Conference this Summer and to President (now also Lord) Mark Pack’s face and I think annoyance, we now have 72 MPs so there really can be no reasonable excuse for not putting someone up for interview.
Yesterday Ian Silvera, a former lobby journalist and now the Editor of Tech, Power, and Media tweeted:
Spoke to upwards of 10 lobby journalists at the Reform Conference. Sounds like Lib Dems have a media crisis.
Overriding sentiment is that hacks and editors think Lib Dem Conf will be a waste of time, the party isn’t engaging on the big issues and it’s not as reactive as it used to be.
In exclusive comments for my reporting (here on the brand new ‘Mathew on Monday-The Video Edit’ over on my YouTube channel), Ian tells me:
The sentiment seems to be one of frustration from political journalists, claiming that they would often get lots of incoming from the Lib Dems for media team in the past around opportunistic events and they felt this type of engagement has dropped off somewhat. In particular, there were some raised eyebrows around the recent Millbank Tower stunt where the party projected Trump HQ onto Reform’s HQ. The stunt got limited coverage (Huff Post, Mirror, and maybe a couple of other outlets , but other journalists thought it was ‘naff’ and noted that media outlets work in that building too.
He went on,
On the policy front, the media are very aware of Ed Davey and Farron (because of his past as leader) but they couldn’t really name any leading policies beyond social care or spokespeople (Daisy Cooper is sometimes on the broadcasters, but who else is there?).
Some left-leaning media have criticised UK journalism’s embrace of Reform, but the party has put great effort and resource into its Monday press briefings during the Summer, while the Lib Dems haven’t offered them anything similar.
Sadly all too true.
Now, from a read of his social media it does seem that Ian is sympathetic to the Right of the political spectrum, so if some Lib Dems want to stick their head in the sand and ignore these words they can do so but I think that would be very foolish indeed. In today’s media landscape we are too often lost in the shuffle. Nigel Farage and Reform get endless coverage because, sadly, outrage and saying everything’s going to Hell in a handcart sells. The Greens are flavour of the month thanks to their charismatic new leader (former Lib Dems) Zack Polanski.
Even Jeremy Corbyn’s latest – still nameless – outfit attracts headlines.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems-with real policies, real MPs and Councillors, and real results-are left fighting for scraps of airtime. The danger is obvious: when the loudest voices dominate, the liberal alternative risks being drowned out.
Here’s a slightly uncomfortable truth: I sometimes get more invitations to appear on national TV and Radio as a Lib Dem focused commentator than do some of our MPs.
Now I enjoy it and do my best to represent the party (whilst retaining an independent perspective) but it at least proves one thing. There is a space in the national conversation for liberal voices – but we’re not filling it as effectively as we should. Our spokespeople need to be out there, loud and clear, every bit as visible as the Greens, Reform, or anyone else. For if we don’t seize that space, others will.
So, yes, the media all too often reduces politics to a red-versus blue-versus turquoise shouting match. But let’s be honest: we haven’t always made it easy for them to do otherwise. Without bold policies and attention-grabbing campaigns, why would the cameras roll?
The good news is, that can change – if we step up with courage, clarity and confidence. Because a liberal voice is not just worth hearing; it’s essential to Britain’s future.
Reset… er, part three!
The government certainly dominated the news coverage on Friday and, to be fair, understandably… given that we saw Angela Rayner’s resignation and a pretty much root and branch changes to the government (with the main exception of the one role that arguably actually meeds changing, besides Starmer himself of course, and that is the beleaguered Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves).
As I said on season two episode one of the Political Frenemies podcast (of which more shortly) it did rather have the air of swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. Who knows, eh, I may be wrong… these could turn out to be fantastic, inspired changes, that see Ministers really delivering in spades for the British people.
It could, but I doubt it somehow.
The government has also arguably taken an even more authoritarian shift (yes, really) with the ‘hardline’ Shabana Mahmood replacing the ‘more liberal’ (really???!!!) Yvette Cooper. And just as I began celebrating the politically dreadful Liz Kendall’s demotion I then realised she’d been replaced as DWP Secretary by the equally ultra Blairite Pat McFadden. what have the nation’s unemployed done to deserve that?!
A final note (for now, at least) on the Reshuffle. A government which (to its credit) claims to be against ‘fire and rehire’ did exactly that to a certain Ian Murray MP. Sacked as Scottish Secretary on Friday the ensuing backlash from Labour figures saw the generally popular MP returned to government a day later, though it at SoS level, in not just one but count them, two departments.
Lucky him, eh?
We’re back… be warned!
So, yes, the moment you’ve all been waiting for I know.
Myself and my Tory sparring partner, Dr (PhD not medical) Chris Newton are back for season two of our much beloved (Editor: Really??? Me: Yes!!!) podcast, Political Frenemies.
This week we were joined by our new occasional Green contributor Daniel Laycock (never fear, I’m on every week) to discuss Rayner, the Reshuffle, the new Greens leader, and the Reform Conference.
Sadly, taking us full circle in this column, there was pretty much zero Lib Dem news to speak of.
You can find Political Frenemies on YouTube and multiple podcasting apps.
Go on…you know you want to!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We have no idea what history will say about Keir Starmer and it may not be right anyway
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Chloe
David Raw
Jana
Peter Black
Nigel Quinton
26 Comments
Totally agree. We are totally absent from crescendo of party’s. David Owen had more coverage in the 1980s with only 8MPs .l know SirEd had a meeting at the BBC regarding this but l don’t know the result. Whether we like it or not immigration seems to be the main issue and must take a stand. Who is our immigration spokesman?
David Owen was the disastrous destroyer of the SDP-Liberal Alliance, but he did have one strength, and it’s the one Tim Rogers highlights above. He knew how to get a good headline.
You don’t do that by whinging to the BBC about fairness. You do it by saying something that they will want to report.
Ed Davey got good coverage when he refused the Trump banquet invitation, didn’t he? He got good coverage because he said something newsworthy, and it was also something that did him credit. That’s what he needs to do more of.
Thanks Mathew for this timely and very important message. I said in one of my comments to an Oped from Tom Arms, that our MPs should spend less time in Parliament and he agreed. They need to spend more time around the country making speeches, joining in events that can attract the media, local as well as national. The great things we say in Parliament are not heard of by most people, so why bother except to propose amendments or the occasional private members bill. Reform has seen itself as more of a movement than a political party and that gives it a highly relevant image, given the public’s distaste for established politics.
“He knew how to get a good headline.
You don’t do that by whinging to the BBC about fairness. You do it by saying something that they will want to report.”
David Allen that is VERY TRUE and you say it simply, passionately and with words that resonate with ordinary people.
I recall Mike Dixon (seemingly in response to members complaining we weren’t being bold enough) saying in a party email before the GE that the only way to increase our coverage, because media outlets had told us that they were giving us limited coverage because they based their coverage on the number of MPs the party won at the last election, and we took this at face value and believed them! We’ve now increased our representation by 6.5 times but I’m pretty sure we don’t get 6.5 times the coverage!
Here’s a radical thought. Have we ever considered not being boring? Actually taking clear unequivocal stances on the issues of the day?
On the supreme court ruling on trans rights, banning Palestine action and the online safety act the most we’ve done is say that we’re “very concerned”. And we’ve not offered any big solutions to the cost of living crisis.
We’ve gotten better on Palestine (after nearly 2 years) but politely complaining about something as horrific as genocide (without even calling it genocide) sub-communicates that we can’t have anything interesting to say (irrespective of our position).
Paddy Ashdown cried in the house of commons over Bosnia! We had far fewer MPs at the time he was able to get recognition for our principles stance on that issue.
the problem that the Liberal Democrats have is that they’re not news. Not in the ‘dog bites man’ sense. They’re been around forever, part of the furniture, and have ever really had an impact except for the coalition years but then they were quickly sent back into irrelevance.
Whereas Reform is new. It’s different. Yes, okay, Farage has been around for what seems like forever, but he was always associated with UKIP / leaving the EU, so this new incarnation that has nothing to do with that feels like a fresh reinvention.
If Reform fails to break through at the election, and ends up getting something like 20% of the vote but 20-30 seats, then in ten or fifteen years once the ‘shiny new’ has worn off, Reform will be getting similar levels of coverage to what the Liberal Democrats get now.
But until then, you simply can’t compete with Reform for sheer novelty value. And novelty is what the people want, so novelty is what any media outlet that knows its audience will give them — otherwise they will switch over to the competition.
We need to address the serious structural problems in our economy. Ed does and interview and says stop defending the status quo, “the status quo is awful”. Great!
But what are we proposing to do about it? It’s been clear for a while that people are fed up and want significant change. Brexit, the Boris mini landslide and then the Starmer landslide were cries for help, to do *something*. And now Reform are in a big lead that’s getting bigger.
We need reform, not Reform. Farage is asking all the right questions but has appalling answers. But he recognises that Britain is Broken and so voters are giving him some credit for listening to them.
Considering the massive reforms we brought to British society last century – twice – we know we can do this because we’ve done it before.
Jobs don’t pay the bills, services are crumbling despite record spending, communities fraying at the edges. We need to invest our way out of the crisis but we can’t do that without a radical- hopefully liberal – reset of how we do things.
We aren’t being talked about because we aren’t talking about the big issues. And we’re certainly not grasping that in 2025 the way politics connects with voters has changed massively.
Our local LD MPs get good coverage in the local media, but there is this strange deafening silence from the party in the national media. This post makes some telling points which need to be addressed, and soon.
The truth is, the Labour Party get coverage because they are in government; the Conservatives get coverage because they are the official opposition; Reform gets coverage because the are ahead in all national opinion polls for the last 5 months and look as possible winners of the next election.
The Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens, are less important…so less coverage.
We have to be seen as aiming to be the next government. It’s as simple as that. It’s a large part of Reform’s current success. Now with our conference coming up it is vital that we portray ourselves in the same way.
How do our politicians go on to the media to defend the post Thatcherite western economic system that has so potently failed the 36% Reform supporters ?
No LD MPs available for comment is unforgivable: yes, there is media indifference to the LDs. But the media team need to up their game and that means, amongst other changes necessary, always having someone available to comment.
I agree with John McHugo: “We have to be seen as aiming to be the next government. It’s as simple as that. It’s a large part of Reform’s current success.”
Success breeds success. It was a big part of how we got 72 MPs elected: people saw us as the being the most likely winners in those constituencies and voted for us.
In Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller’s new seat) you could tell that some former Tories were voting for us her in part because they liked Jess but in part because they didn’t want to be the only person in their social circle still voting Tory on the day the Tory candidate lost her seat.
“We have to be seen as aiming to be the next government.”
That isn’t very credible. But “We have to be seen as aiming to be part of the next government.” is perfectly credible.
A hung parliament is odds on. Reform the largest party is also odds-on. As in Germany, the crucial issue is likely to be whether several non-Fascist parties can come together to keep the Fascists out. The answer had better be yes!
So far Reform has given no signs of favouring fascist social re-organisation; so I think more plausible criticisms should be found.
@David Allen – Reform only has four MPs, and yet is being seen as a contender for power. But even the national wind behind you doesn’t necessarily win constituencies where you’re up against established party machines and you have no ground game. Perhaps Reform can build one, but perhaps they can’t.
The point is – if people believe Reform could lead the next government, that will hugely help them. People like to vote for winners, to feel that their vote will count. They take reassurance from the popularity of a party that they’re not voting for fringe lunatics or idealistic fools.
When I say we need to be seen to be aiming to be the next government, I don’t mean that we should going around telling people we will be the next government. I mean that from our words and deeds people should be able to tell that we have thought seriously about how we would govern if we were in power – that we are ready for it.
People may like our MPs and the work they do in their constituencies, and they may like our work as a scrutinising opposition. I’m not convinced they look at us and think: this party has the difficult answers to the questions it’s asking, particularly on big subjects like the economy and reform of public services. They like the tweaks we propose… but they don’t believe we have a deliverable plan to manage the economy.
Mathew raises an important point here: media visibility isn’t just about how often editors call, but also about whether parties are ready to step forward. With 72 MPs, the Liberal Democrats have plenty of voices to offer. Ensuring availability and proactive engagement could significantly strengthen their media presence.
Chris Moore – Farage will deport 600,000 “illegal immigrants”. He won’t find those numbers just by picking out those who fail an asylum claim or are convicted of crime. So he will need ICE-style snatch squads on the streets, hauling in non-whites at random, and then deporting any of them whose paperwork has been lost by the Home Office. I call that fascism – what do you call it?
If such appalling behaviour needs to be described, I would call it repressive and authoritarian.
Fascism takes a particular stance on re-organising society. I see no such fascist pretensions in Reform; they strike me more like reactionary and repressive conservatives on social matters and flick-flacking between Thatcherite smalll state and populist Front National type estatism on economic matters.
Neither Front National, Reform, Nor Spain’s Vox are “fascists”.
Chris, a genuine enquiry – can you please spell out what you think the Fascist stance is on “reorganising society”, and why you think Farage doesn’t fit the model?
If you mean that the Nazis set up the Gestapo to rule by fear, I would contend that Farage would soon need to go the same way. His deportation squads would form the initial backbone, soon to be supplemented by some sort of additional militia force to quell dissent.
Farage likes to pose as a nice beer-quaffing harmless old reactionary who will be content to prat around with flags and oil-burning business-as-usual. His more recent speeches show that his ambitions are much greater than that. In much the same way as Trump 2 is far worse than Trump 1.
You call Farage “repressive and authoritarian”. Well, yes, up to a point. There have been many repressive and authoritarian regimes throughout the world and, of course, in our own feudal past. Not all of those regimes engaged in massive pogroms against ethnic minorities. The Nazis did. Farage is heading in a similar direction.
Perhaps it time for a “Refreshed Liberal Democrats ” A move away from the old and stale spokespersons .bringing forward some more of our new MP s my biggest fear is that we appear like yesterdays party with nothing new to say ,this could have a significant impact on next Mays local elections . Use this years conference to move forward and not to retreat into obscurity.
We have a chance to elect a media-savvy, young President, who will also drive on significant change in our appeal to ethnic minorities.
@ David Allen: hello, David, both the Nazis and Mussolini moved towards totalitarianism.
1. Classic liberal rights of e.g. freedom of speech and protest repressed.
2.Economic organisation was state-led corporatism: i.e. private industry co-opted/obliged into fulfilling the diktats of the State. (This happened to a lesser degree in the UK war economy.)
3. Ideology of blood and soil. (More so in Germany.)
I don’t see Reform aiming for those fascist objectives, as they themselves are more reactionary conservative nationalists.
You talk about “pogroms” but so far there’s nothing to suggest Reform want slaughter of ethnic minorities or immigrants; this also hasn’t happened in the US.
My bet is that Reform will NOT become more extreme; running local councils will likely induce more realism in local Reform leaders. And already thete have various Reform councillor defections to UKIP and Advance, which are both more right-wing.
Chris, thanks for your carefully argued reply.
I am reminded of how the Brexiteers successfully played it. When they set up an unofficial Leave.EU campaign organisation alongside the more “moderate” official Vote Leave organisation, optimistic Remainers thought they had made a disorganised mistake. They hadn’t. Leave.EU led the dirty work to shift the Overton window on immigration, while Vote Leave preserved the appearance of stolid respectability to maximise the public vote. Together they won.
Farage, now positioning hmself on the “respectable” side, has the opportunity to use Robinson in much the same way. Perhaps, as you argue, Farage will steer clear of overt fascist ideology and language. But will he quietly rejoice, while formally keeping his distance, if racial violence grows?
Hello, David, my extended family is made up of around 50% first gen “legal” immmigrants, who are a different skin colour to me. My sister works with asylum seekers.
Marches like that of the weekend fill me with disgust and my relatives with fear.
Your last conjecture is an interesting one.
I must admit, I haven’t been as disappointed in such a short comment here on LDV as I have been with Neil’s comment here. Suffice it’s best to reply simply “Perhaps it’s not”.