Well, that was all quite a shambles wasn’t it?
A political own goal if ever I’ve seen one. No, on this occasion I’m not speaking of Labour on welfare, the Tories on, well, pretty much everything, or Reform UK on its failing candidate vetting. I’m speaking of our leader Ed Davey’s sacking of Christine Jardine after she voted in line with our party’s values on a welfare amendment last week and, in doing so, nominally broke the party Whip which was (inexplicably) to abstain.
As a Lib Dem MP source said to me (in news I broke on my Substack the morning after) “this has been handled dreadfully.” The same MP answered in the affirmative when I asked them if there was significant disquiet about the issue in the Lib Dem Commons caucus. That matches cool anger among the party base; with Lib Dem Women writing to the Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain with their concerns and more than one hundred party members signing an open letter in less than twenty-four hours calling not only for Christine Jardine to be re-appointed as our Scotland and Women and Equalities Spokesperson but also for her to be given a formal apology over the handling of the matter. I’m proud to be one of the signatories of that letter.
Christine Jardine says she only learnt of her demotion from the media, that is surely disgraceful. The fact she’d been warned this might happen is not the same as being informed that it had. Our Whips/leadership need to do better.
And, on a further point, how can Ed Davey go from saying at a recent conference that Christine was “the best equalities spokesperson the party’s ever had” to sacking her from the role for voting in line with our party’s values?! It makes no sense whatsoever.
I don’t mean this negatively in regards to her replacements (which by the way were not given a formal announcement but just had their positions changed on the party website), that being Susan Murray as the new Scotland Spokesperson and Lisa Smart on Women and Equalities, but Christine Jardine should be restored to her prior roles without delay. And the leadership should ask themselves some very serious questions about how this whole matter has been handled and ensure nothing like it happens again!
We need to be loud in speaking up for civil liberties!
Is it just me or have we gone quiet as a party on civil liberties, something which has always been at the heart of our Liberal movement? On Saturday I attended the NEON (New Economy Organisers Network) Summer Gathering in London.
It was a fantastic day full of great speakers, panels, and networking. One of the most fascinating sessions was entitled ‘Campaigning in an age of authoritarianism’ and saw excellent speakers from Liberty, Amnesty International (with which I’m an active member), and the Runnymede Trust.
In the online leaflet for the day it said the following about the session:
Campaigning in the UK faces escalating threats from restrictive laws, a politicised charity commission, and strategic framing of activists as obstructive troublemakers. This combination is straight out of the international authoritarian playbook and Trump’s presidency is emboldening governments across the world to engage in further power-grabbing. In this context, how do we continue speaking out boldly and keep campaigning safe, from the climate crisis to saving public services?
We Liberal Democrats should be at the forefront of this effort, standing loud and proud in defence of civil liberties, of the right to peacefully protest, of charities being able to campaign on behalf of those they serve, and so on. It’s great that we raise the issue of care often, but other issues matter too!
Never Trump!
There’s talk today that the orange buffoon who currently resides in the White House becoming the fourth U.S. President to address a joint meeting of the UK Parliament, after Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Trump is no Reagan, Clinton, or Obama. In fact should he do so he’d likely be the first convicted felon to address a joint meeting of Parliament, which really does say it all.
Never Trump!
* 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
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
17 Comments
Might deep ingredients of Liberal Democracy include humanity and diversity?
Might conformity not be a deep ingredient of Liberal Democracy?
Even if anyone thinks she should have been sacked (not me) this is a disgraceful way of doing it and should be investigated:
“Christine Jardine says she only learnt of her demotion from the media, that is surely disgraceful. “
Bonkers. She broke the whip.
This seems to have been incredibly badly handled, but if you break the whip then you cannot remain on the frontbench. If Christine wanted to vote with her principles on this then fair enough, but she must have realised what the consequences would be.
The Christine Jardine affair seems to have been, at best, mishandled as a Human Resources issue. Going further, I think of myself as a political nerd, and even I find it hard to work out what she did so wrong. Try to imagine explaining it to an ordinary party member who admires Christine, let alone to a voter generally unsophisticated about how politics works (or should work).
@Ian Sanderson
“I think of myself as a political nerd, and even I find it hard to work out what she did so wrong.”
Its pretty straightforward. As a member of the front bench team she broke the whip. The leadership team has to stick together to be politically credible, and as a front bench spokesperson Christine will have known this perfectly well – her letter makes that perfectly clear. That is how UK politics works, and has worked since at least the late 18th century. It’s the same reason that 2 (if I recall correctly) Lib Dem ministers resigned from the coalition government rather than support the introduction of tuition fees.
Christine certainly did know that sacking was likely of she broke the whip. And from Ed’s point of view, having made it clear what would happen, he could hardly go back on it.
The stupidity of this whole sorry matter is the whip. Good heavens, abstaining on a nasty squalid Tory amendment, whatever next.
I thought we were a party where individual conscience was accepted. Certainly in the group I led – even when we were part of the administration – we had no problem if someone abstained or voted contrary to the whip, as long as they told us in advance. I think that Ed and his team should think again about how our MPs are whipped and allow matters of conscience to go unremarked.
@Tristan Ward 15th Jul ’25 – 2:09pm..
If, as you say, the reason for her dismissal was ” pretty straightforward” Why was there no “straightforward way” of informing her of the fact before leaking it to the media?
Perhaps if Ed Davey spent less time on slides and falling off paddleboards he might get a better understanding of this ‘straightforward protocol’ that it seems everyone but he knows..
@expats
If, as you say, the reason for her dismissal was ” pretty straightforward” Why was there no “straightforward way” of informing her of the fact before leaking it to the media?”
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question. The reason for dismissal was straightforward – Christine – as a front bench spokesman – broke the whip. To move from that to the method of dismissal is a non-sequitur. The method of dismissal, as some one has said, is an HR point.
Tristan Ward 15th Jul ’25 – 7:57pm… To move from that to the method of dismissal is a non-sequitur…
Hardly.. It is the obvious next step.. The inept way her dismissal was handled became the main media story and made the party, especially its leadership, look unprofessional, clumsy and arrogant in it’s dealings with its internal, and external, problems.. In politics appearances are everything..
Tristan – I think your are re-inforcing my second point – that you need to be immersed in the managerial practices of parties in the House of Commons to understand the issue, and that this is a problem when presenting the Party to the wider public.
I see you didn’t disagree with my first point.
To every commenter here who indicates the root cause of the problem as being “She broke the whip,” I simply ask the question “What sort of party chooses to have a three line whip (or any sort of whip) on such a trivial aspect and how and by whom was it decided?”
Those who support a demand of absolute and total obedience to a such a decision on such a minor point, really need to reflect deeply on whether the consequences of these actions were a benefit to our party both (internally and externally) or not.
A small storm in a small teapot, but should have been avoided with a bit more competence.
Actually David, A thinks tha seems t’be a bit down at’ moment.
Oor party is much more than a small teapot now, deserving of some larger epithet, Urned through our electoral successes in 2025 an befoor. Indeed its diversity of flavours and tastes now creates a much more rounded brew and before t’Oolong we might even be the cup of tea of the choice for most of the people of this country (an God’s own county as well).
P’raps tha’s bin in Scotl’nd a bit too long and tha needs to get to Betty’s in ‘arrogate for a real Yorkshire Brew up lad (as them sez in ‘Eckmonwyke).
Sorry David,
It seems my computer chose EyUp rather than AI to edit my post … or maybe it was the other way round.
Anyway – all the best,
David
@ David Evans. Never been better, David, and I recall my dear old Mum used to say Betty’s is for Toffs and soft southerners. Prefer fish and chips and a win for H.T.A.F.C.
On the substantial issue, the greasy pole of political leadership has a short shelf life and requires both charisma and good judgement.
When one door closes another one opens ,perhaps this provides Christine with oppertunity to stand for party president we really need someone who reflects the membership of the party and challenge the status quo that has built up around Ed Davey.
she would win it as easy as falling off a contrived log at a theme park.
The ability to protest is becoming more important. Issues such as climate change are of direct effect on individuals who have the right to see their views are acknowledged. It is not right that dissent is stifled in a democratic country such as ours. We should campaign for increased rights for civil society so politicians are more aware of how the electorate feels on specific issues between elections.