Not Left. Not Right. Liberal.
The Green victory in the Manchester Gorton and Denton by-election should stiffen every Liberal Democrat spine.
Not because we suddenly face a new political opponent. But because it reveals something important about the electorate.
Voters are restless. They are frustrated with managerial politics. They are wary of institutions. And when they sense conviction, clarity and purpose – even if they do not agree with every detail – they respond positively.
That matters to us, and our future strategy.
If we do not define clearly what Liberalism stands for, others will fill that space with their own narratives of change. The Manchester result is not simply about the Greens. It is about a wider hunger for something that feels principled and future-facing.
And that makes it more urgent than ever that we explain who we are.
Every few years someone tries to pin down the Liberal Democrats to a position on the traditional political spectrum. Are you left or right? Are you centrist?
It is an understandable question. British politics has trained us to see everything through that narrow lens – a straight line stretching from higher taxes to lower taxes, from big state to small state.
But that axis no longer explains the world we are living in. And it certainly does not capture what British Liberalism is about.
The word “liberal” has become slippery. Some hear it and think libertarian – no rules, no guardrails. Others assume it means American-style progressivism. Neither is correct. British Liberalism is its own tradition: rooted in liberty, fairness, community and the decentralisation of power.
If we accept the old frame, we fight on someone else’s battlefield. If we redefine it, we start telling a much more compelling story.
So what is the alternative?
Open vs Closed
The dividing line in modern politics is increasingly not economic theory but mindset.
Open politics is confident, cooperative and outward-looking. It believes Britain succeeds when we work with others, welcome new ideas, and adapt to change – to the excitement of new experiences and learning from others. It values evidence over dogma and sees diversity not as a threat but as enrichment.
Closed politics is defensive and tribal. It thrives on suspicion and nostalgia. It prefers blame to problem-solving.
That does not map neatly onto left or right. It cuts across them.
As Liberals, we are unapologetically on the side of openness – to trade, to ideas, to scrutiny, to renewal.
In Manchester, voters backed a party that projected a clear moral stance and a sense of direction. If we want to compete in that space, we must be equally clear about ours.
Power hoarded vs Power shared
If there is one axis that defines Liberalism more than any other, it is this.
Do we concentrate power in Westminster, in corporate monopolies, in unaccountable institutions? Or do we share it – and give power back to the people?
When we argue for electoral reform, we are arguing for shared political power.
When we back community energy and SMEs, we are arguing for shared economic power.
When we push for devolution, citizens’ assemblies, co-operatives and local procurement, we are saying that the people affected by decisions should shape them.
This is not technocracy. It is democratic imagination.
If we are centrists, it is purely because our belief in the individual means we are as wary of the reach of the state as we are about the clout of big business.
That instinct – sceptical of concentrated power wherever it sits – is the golden thread of British Liberalism.
And it is precisely this instinct that allows us to offer something distinctive in our winnable seats: not just protest, but power; not just anger, but agency.
Short-term vs Long-term
Another fault line runs through British politics: short-termism versus stewardship.
Too much of our politics is reactive and headline-driven. Policy is designed for the next news cycle rather than the next generation.
Liberals have always been strongest when we lift our eyes to the horizon.
Climate action is not a fashion. It is an intergenerational duty.
Investing in prevention – in health, in encouraging inquisitive young minds, in flood resilience – is not glamorous. But it is wiser and fairer than constantly clearing up the damage.
Reforming housing so that young people can afford a home in the communities they love. Tackling generational inequality. Preparing honestly for AI’s disruption to the jobs market while giving people the tools to adapt and thrive.
These are not left–right arguments. They are questions about what kind of country we want to become.
Liberalism thinks ahead.
Fear vs Freedom
At heart, Liberalism is a moral philosophy.
Illiberal politics mobilises fear – fear of outsiders, fear of change, fear of losing control.
Liberalism is about freedom.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom to love who you choose.
Freedom to start a business or a community project.
Freedom from pollution in your rivers and seas.
Freedom from arbitrary state power.
Freedom to choose to live as you wish without someone else dictating the terms of your life.
Freedom is not borrowed rhetoric. It is the core of our tradition. But it is always paired with responsibility and fairness. My freedom cannot come at the cost of yours.
That balance – liberty with justice – is the distinctive hallmark of British Liberalism.
So how should we describe ourselves?
Not as “centrist”.
Not as a midpoint between two entrenched tribes.
Not even as “not Reform” (after being “not the Tories”) .
To a normal voter, we should say something simpler and more confident:
We believe in fairness and freedom.
We believe power should be closer to you.
We believe in fixing things for the long term, not just chasing headlines.
We trust people to know what’s best for them.
The Manchester result is a signal flare. Voters will reward clarity. They will reward imagination. They will back leaders who stand for something, not those who trim to the political wind.
A world fearful of geopolitical tensions, overreach of big business, and the encroachment of AI desperately needs Liberalism – but it needs to know what it is.
It is our job to define it, communicate it and apply it with conviction in the places we can win – so that the future is shaped by freedom and fairness, not by fear and frustration.
* Dr Roz Savage is the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
37 Comments
Seems to me that since 2010 the electorate have been struggling to find an alternative to “whoever you vote for, the government always gets in”. In 2010 LibDems looked like an honest and principled alternative- coalition and student fees did for that idea. Then there was Brexit – Cameron was against it, which was good enough reason to vote for it. Then the huge enthusiasm for Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party – destroyed by the factional in-fightning. Ok, let’s try Boris then – He’s a bit different. Yes, but not in a good way. After Truss & Sunak at least we can get rid of the Tories and Labour would be different….Sigh. Gorton &Denton looks like another triumph of hope over experience, and at first glance Hannah Spencer MP appears quite genuine.
How are the LDs going to offer the electorate what’s required? Nationalise the water cos? Adjustments to tax and spend? Politics may not just be about tax and spend priorities, but they are quite important.
The problem is as I see it is that we have a centre left membership but a centre right electorate. We have to adapt to the fact that to grow we need to keep and build in the former conservative seats. Especially if the conservatives wake up to the fact they have gone off in the wrong direction and do an about turn. If we try to copy the Green party we make the same mistake.
I applaud all Roz says in this post – but the question is this: is the party, including of course Roz’ fellow MPs, ready and prepared to step up a gear along the lines she sets out? How does this fit/augment our current strategy?
While relieved the Greens kept the awful Farage candidate out of Parliament, our invisibility in the Gorton by election is a sad reminder that, while FPTP makes targetting (or voter efficiency as it gets called nowadays) essential; if you only-ever target you run
out of the ‘next-time-round’ target seats pipeline.
Our 2024 election result was in fact a two-step success: our big leap (60% if memoery serves) in the vote in 2019 over 2017 failed of course to win seats – but it established us as the clear alternative (‘only we can beat the Tories here’) in dozens of seats and this set us up for 2024.
Put it another way: we lost our deposit last Thursday (despite having an excellent candidate). In 2024, while winning a wonderful 72 seats, we lost something like 231 deposits. Are we doing enough to attract/encourage public support so we win more and broader support – and build the next generation of target seats?
You need to put that segment about power shared vs power hoarded in front of HQ and prop their eyes open like Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange so they can’t ignore it.
@Tim I wouldn’t describe our electorate as Centre-Right at according to YouGov most Progressive voters see us as closely aligned with Labour on the Left while more Conservative voters see us as closer to the Centre than Labour or the Greens. So our base (those who always vote for us) is Progressive, but it is our swing voters that lean closer to the Centre. One of the mistakes we are making is getting too hung up on the views of our swing voters and not our base; we can already see with the Labour Party what happens when you alienate them by desperately trying to keep your swing, who by the nature of politics, will always switch at some point.
What a wonderful article! This should throw down a gauntlet to Ed and his team that we have to get some passion into what we stand for. To address Keith Sharp’s question, our MPs MUST be prepared to step up a gear. Of course we need the policies and the realism to back up our fine sentiments, but politics is not won by arguments, it’s won by appeals to something better, and that’s why Roz Savage’s article strikes absolutely the right chord. It should be used as the template for us to campaign everywhere at every governmental level – not to copy the Green Party, but to be as authentic for Liberalism as Hannah Spencer was for the Greens’ vision of hope for a better future.
Roz is correct.The party has to bang the drum louder, WHEN EVER, WHERE EVER it can. Frank comments are needed. Are we to be a NATIONAL winning party to become the GOVERNMENT or just be a part of a future govnt?.Our candidate in Gorton got no support although she has been their years. That lack of attention implies we wish to be just part of a govnt.
It is like a swan.Under the surface of the pond,it is paddling like mad to move. Only the top of its body is seen which is mostly ignored. It is mostly noticed when it joins other birds chasing food, SHOWING ITSELF,making a noise.
This fundamentally misunderstands the term “left wing”. It isn’t about whether you want privatised healthcare or not. It has historically meant “I oppose unaccountable power”. So when I see so-called liberals bending over backwards to claim the term doesn’t apply to them, it raises a red flag.
Famously, Nick Clegg declared himself to be a “radical centrist”. What that means in practice, we have now learned, is sitting at the feet of tech billionaires and arguing how they, uniquely, should not have to worry about competition law and antitrust legislation. I’m sure he wouldn’t pay lip service to every single word in this article, but in practice still wants us to be lorded over kings.
A lack of curiosity over the terms “leftwing” and “rightwing” begs real question about whose side you’ll end up being on when push comes to shove. Is this really the weekend to be declaring you are completely neutral when it comes to the current political tides?
I agree with just about every word of this article. The problem is that this is not what we are like when we actually get power. Spreading power in our communities. Absolutely, so lets not have sitting MPs holding on to their roles as councillors. That’s even against Labour and Tory rules and special dispensation has to be given by the whips. And all the other councillors “doubling up” on various borough/town/parish positions, often co-opted without an election. Suspicion of the role of the state ? Where I live the local lib dem councillors seem obsessed with 20 mph speed limits, not outside schools, not at accident black spots, but just to appease the local curtain twitchers. Our next step should probably to just to start being liberal.
Rose. The seats gained last time were all from the Conservatives. Yes, we had some Labour switchers but the overwhelming majority were Conservatives who had seen themselves as centre right. Yes we have our base voters in traditional areas of support ( Cornwall Highlands mid Wales etc) but also essential swing voters in new areas(Surrey Sussex). We now need to turn those swing voters into our base voters before the Conservatives come to their senses and change direction back to the centre. If not we lose them and most if not all of those seats back to the Conservatives.
Good article, I think the question is how to appeal to 2 disparate electorates ie left liberal and soft conservative voters at the same time. I think they could be united around the 4 E,s: Europe, Economy, Environment and Education and developing eye catching policies around those e.g raising taxes on polluters whilst raising income tax thresholds.
I find it interesting, but also disappointing that so many choose to focus on the liberal part of our heritage and ignore or have forgotten the (social) democrat part. The introduction of Social Democrats like Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins, and the substantial number of centre left activists who came with them had a profound and extremely positive impact on the Liberal party, changing us from a largely theoretician centred party with great ideas, but little practical success in winning seats to a party focussed on Community Politics, winning and representing local communities and applying as much of those ideas as we could to the problems they faced.
We weren’t and I will always contend should never try to be out and out ‘progressive’ in the current sense because that ignores the representative part of an elected politician’s role where balances always have to be struck between competing views and communities. To old school Lib Dems like Shirley Williams or David Penhaligon solving practical problems that improved things generally across the community as a whole was central to their philosophy. Nobody could be given the right to always take and never give because aiming to improve things generally was always more successful in winning elections than continuously trying to please one particular pressure group and then losing and watching it all be undone.
Ultimately success beats purity and the place to win elections is not on the progressive fringes but in the Liberal Democrat centre – left and right.
@Tim Alas I’ve already written about this!
https://newmodelliberal.blogspot.com/2025/11/one-nation-conservatives-arent-our.html
Great to see more people calling for us to be an apologetically liberal party!
Good to see such an article come from one of our MPs and i agree with almost all of it. However, it leaves out a clear indication as to what our message to voters should be. For example, the part about Power Hoarded versus Power Shared is correct but abstract and in that form does not attract most voters. We political activists and thinkers have a vital part to play in our bubble but unless we reach outside that bubble with a powerful, simply expressed message of hope, fairness and (yes) vision people will not vote for us in the numbers we need, including those places outside the soft Conservative territories. We also need to be much more active outside the Westminster bubble. When I made this last point at Autumn conference, the response was how Farage gets criticised for not doing enough in Parliament BUT his activities outside that bubble is precisely why he has managed to grow such a large movement in his favour.
Liberal Democrats tend to be very good on the dangers of concentrating political power, but often have little to say about the concentration of economic power.
The rising inequality we are seeing is undesirable, not only because it limits the life chances of so many, but also because it harms the country as a whole by restricting entrance to a widening range of careers to the products of a narrow elite. Meanwhile, the activities of untrammelled tech corporations are emerging as a threat to democracy itself.
Roz is right to mention generational inequality, but there are many other economic inequalities we should be talking about too. Our current policies in areas like land taxation and private education seem calculated to bolster inequality rather than challenge it.
The main problem here is the disjunct between Roz Savage’s admirable statement of principles, and the responses (e.g. Jenny Barnes, James Graham, Chris Cory) about how the party has behaved in practice. Before Coalition, the Lib Dems were able to present themselves in much the same way as the Greens do now – As a party with clean hands who would fight against the centralist “power hoarders” and the lobbyists. Then came Coalition, and now Lib Dem hands don’t really look much cleaner than anyone else’s.
The second problem is the almost unreconcilable split between those who would fiercely stand up for centre-left principles versus those who would chase after “pink Tory” votes. Doing both these things at once is liable to split our trousers down the middle, which is never a good look!
The “Tory-vote-chasers” are not going to go away. But perhaps they can be persuaded to accept constraints. Don’t do populism. Don’t go calling for tax cuts, when you know that they can’t be afforded. Don’t make, or hint at, unfunded promises. Don’t just fall off paddleboards, which voters will intuitively recognise as an innovative way of campaigning while avoiding opening the leader’s mouth. Do, by all means, call out fiscal irresponsibilty, obeisance to commercial lobbyists, and inattention to defence against both Putin and Trump. Appeal to erstwhile Tory voters – But only on Lib Dem principles!
This is the best and most important article I’ve seen from the Lib Dem’s in years.
Thank you for writing this, excellent article, Roz. It should be compulsory reading for all Lib Dem Parliamentarians – and everyone at 66 Buckingham Gate.
@Jonathan Calder “Liberal Democrats tend to be very good on the dangers of concentrating political power, but often have little to say about the concentration of economic power.” I agree. We have spoken clearly about help for poorer people but say little about stemming what causes people to be poor and what helps others to excessive wealth.
@ David Allen
“As a party with clean hands who would fight against the centralist “power hoarders” and the lobbyists. Then came Coalition, and now Lib Dem hands don’t really look much cleaner than anyone else’s”
It looks as of you are saying the Lib Dems should never accept a place in government. If so, I suggest you join a debating society.
Personally I thought thw coalition was – as these things go – a good government. And I liked seeing liberals in government doing liberal things. It made a chnage from the impotence of the pervious 100 years or so.
James and John Grout – may I second your comments.
Only the other week I observed that to most of the electorate we are almost invisible. They have no idea what we are about.
I despair as to what it will take to get the hierarchy in the party to get the message.
I welcome Roz Savage’s article and largely agree with it. I hope the leadership take note and act on it.
It reminds me of an old Liberal Party slogan. Not left or right but forward.
@Roz “It is our job to define it (Liberalism), communicate it and apply it with conviction in the places we can win – so that the future is shaped by freedom and fairness, not by fear and frustration.”
This says that we should only define, communicate and apply Liberalism in the places we can win, leaving everywhere else with no idea what we stand for. We need to spread our beliefs much more widely, and not ignore the many black holes and lost deposits which we suffer regularly in ‘non-winnable’ seats. I despair that we so often concentrate locally on fixing potholes. The biggest pothole we fall into is not to build vision, purpose and support for the whole of society with a national campaign to involve all forgotten areas, treating everybody as equals. Lib Dems seem to get less publicity now with 72 MPs than we have had in the past with far fewer. Preaching only to the converted will not help us gain traction unless we become more radical, rather than trying to position ourselves in the ‘centre’ or anywhere else.
Jo Grimond defined the Liberal stance as being a party of the non-Marxist left, which position brought me into politics nearly sixty years ago. We have never been a party of the centre, because the centre doesn’t win elections – even if so many commentators say that power is won from the centre. Voters respond to having positive views, not “wishy-washy” fudging. And essentially our belief in freedom for everyone (“freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity”) means opposition to all those who seek to restrict freedom by trying to hold onto power, either through monopolising economic wealth or state control. Thus we have a radical philosophy, meaning that we seek to define and apply radical solutions to socio-economic problems, NOT by tinkering with the same tired old methods. This is how John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge sought to address the problems they perceived, by challenging orthodoxy and creating a world fit for all. It is, incidentally, how Roz herself crossed three oceans single-handed, by gritting her teeth and sticking her oar in the water.
We do not “suddenly face a new political opponent,” the Green Party has been growing steadily in many parts of the country for over a decade. I was elected to Bristol cIty Council in 2005, and the following year the Green Party elected it’s first Councillor. In 2009 Liberal Democrats gained an overll majority on the City Council for the first time, consolidated that in 2010 and lost it 2011.
In 2015 (same day as the General Election) Green Party gained 5 seats from the Liberal Democrats and 2 from Labour, and after the 2024 were the largest party with 34 seats out of 70.
Te Green Party’s growth in Bristol was similar in nature to that f the Liberal Dmocarts in the 1990s and early 2000s, a steady incremental progress so why did the Lib Dems decline and the Green Party grow?
Well it was not just the Coalition, althugh that probably turbocharghed the change.
It wasn’t even the fact that Lib Dems ran the Council, Generally we were viewed as better than Labour who had run the show for several decades before 2003.
And it wasnt that we stopped campaigning, if anything we were doing more than we did when we were gaining seats.
The main reason was that the Green Party was offeeing something different and were seen not just another Westminster establishment party.
Several people on the Council Group in Bristol saw the rise and fall of Lib Des and the rise of the Green Party, we should learn from their ecperience.
.
Great article thanks Roz.
Love this line: ‘Open politics is confident, cooperative and outward-looking. It believes Britain succeeds when we work with others, welcome new ideas, and adapt to change – to the excitement of new experiences and learning from others. It values evidence over dogma and sees diversity not as a threat but as enrichment.’ Absolutely.
I also want to echo what Tristan said – we have to stop apologising for being in government or adding more fuel to this narrative that we didn’t deliver when we were in government. Actually we achieved a lot in government and should take pride in that.
Tristan Ward said:
“@DavidAllen… It looks as of you are saying the Lib Dems should never accept a place in government. If so, I suggest you join a debating society.”
Please cast your mind back to January, when I wrote to advocate that the Lib Dems plan for an anti-Farage coalition, while analysing the pitfalls. Somebody called “Tristan Ward” posted two comments below-the-line…
https://www.libdemvoice.org/how-could-a-coalition-work-79010.html
I remeber being at ALDC Confernence with Mick Taylor in 2011. We both made the point in open session that the the Party Leadership and MPs were not talking to Lib Dems who knew about coalitions, minority control and aliances in Local Governmemt, but preferred instead to listen to SPADs and MP’s staff straight out of Oxbridge.
At that time I was also on the National Executive of the Public and Commercial Services Union., so had something of an ‘inside track’ on Civil Serice issues. On more than one ocasion I offered to help identify which Senior Civil Servants would work well with Lib Dem Ministers and which would present obtacles. (Remember that in 2010 many of the top grades in the Civil Service had progressed their career in the Thatcher years). My ofer was never taken up.
Thibd reached a low point when I spoke to a Lib Dem Junior Minister about the danger for the party if it kept that supporting Treasury driven cuts to the terms and confitions of junior and middle ranking Civil Servats. He was dismissive and not even prepared to look again at he figures or meet PCS officials.
In the elections from 1992-2010 there was a high level of support for Liberal Democrats in he middle and junior ranks of public sector workers.
Many of those have voted Labourand/or Green ever since. Are we surpised?
Steve Comer,
I find very interesting and understandable your report on changes in Bristolian politics over the past years. From my electoral analysis, it seems likely to me that if current levels of support hold true, the Greens are mathematically liable to gain another three of the Bristol seats at the next election – Bristol East, Bristol Northeast and Bristol South – and could conceivably also take the remaining Bristol Northwest. How are Liberal Democrat relations with the Greens in the city?
Roz . What you are discribing is not traditional Liberalism but modern day social liberalism and yes it was influenced over many decades by Lloyd George , Beverage Keynes , Jenkins and Williams . but it has continued to flourish within the Liberal Democrats based on evidence based politics ,environmentalism and social justice . We just need to be brave enough to promote its values.
@ David Allen.
Thanks for the reference which I had indeed forgotten/not connected with you.
I’m afraid the take away from the post at 4.40 on 1st March (and others) is that the Lib Dems are irrevocably polluted by the coalition of 2010-15 and by implication should never go into coalition again with anyone. It’s good to get that cleared up.
You will recall my contribution was to suggest that certain Conservatives might be a members of/support a national government. In a “stop Farage” world that should not be ruled out.
In that context I came across the following extract from the Tory 1945 election manifesto posted today on Conservative Home. You will find the concepts familiar.
“Progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him”.
@David Allen
“The second problem is the almost unreconcilable split between those who would fiercely stand up for centre-left principles versus those who would chase after “pink Tory” votes”
This really does matter.
Given the similarity/overlap of language from the Tory manifesto of 1945 (*) to the preamble to our constitution – presumably acceptable to all Lib Dems – our going after “pink Tory” votes should not be that difficult. I agree with pretty well everything you say about unfunded promises etc.
(*) “Progress must be extended and accelerated not by subordinating the individual to the authority of the State, but by providing the conditions in which no one shall be precluded by poverty, ignorance, insecurity, or the selfishness of others from making the best of the gifts with which Providence has endowed him” –
The 1945 Conservative Manifesto was also known as “Winston Churchill’s Declaration of Policy to the Electors”. Did that old liberal get there first?
Churchill….. “that old Liberal”, Tristan, …… had, I’m afraid, some very illiberal views and prejudices……., and participated in some very illiberal activities……. as is well known to anybody with a serious interest in Liberal historiography.
As for today, Starmer dealt well with Badenoch’s highly irresponsible and dangerous moitherings at PMQ’s. Badenoch’s sabre rattling did nothing to make me feel reassured as to the safety or security of my family members (including two under fives) currently enroute back from Sri Lanka.
In respect to the current draft dodger in the White House, my thoughts are, “and you are no FDR Mr President”.
@ David Raw
Please don’t patronise me David. I am well aware that Churchill was born in 1874 and carried the prejudices of his time. He also carried a healthy hostility to authoritarianism. Of the two I prefer paternalism. Wouldn’t you? Besides, the narrative around Tonypandy is contested. I have no doubt Churchill misunderstood Ghandi completely.
In my view the current tendency to judge dead people by contemporary standards is one of the reasons “progressive” politics is in the mess it is in. I agree with you about Badenoch – and I suspect Churchill would too were he alive today.
There are about 7million Tory voters out there who feel no party represents them. I suspect the statement I quoted would appeal to many of them. Given our own party’s commitment to something very similar I see no reason why we can’t appeal to them as well.
Aping Labour seems likely to be unproductive given and the Green’s prescription just seems completely unworkable at best. After all there is no successful secure and free socialist state out there.
Good to see one of our new intake MPs writing such a thoughful piece. Can’t disagree with anything. But I could add that we’re failing to cut through in vast swathes of the electorate but can correct that if we campaign on things that make news. “No publicity is base publicity”.
Ed Davey’s stunts all a message but that message would never have made to the media without being superficially silly – and daring. We all need more of that “daring”. Currently we can say “we Care, we’re Fair”. Not in the least newsworthy.
Add “we Dare” and talk about some superficially daring policies more – especially to appeal to younger voters – and we’ll start to cut through outside the held & target seats.
The country needs very radical change. We have some radical policies, generally well thought through, but we’re afraid to talk about them outside our comfort zone.
Roz is one of 26 of our MPs who’s a Green LibDem. It’s a great help for me coming from one nation Tory supporting after Brexit, to realise I was a LibDem all along. Ed is GLD too. Many times more GLD MPs than the Green Party has total MPs in Parliament. How we succeed is in strands. Take Wind Energy which was Ed’s lead in office against Tories taking donations from fossil fuel. Now we’re working on practical delivery of energy at council level. One councillor asked me what to do about two wind turbines she had funds for but National Grid wouldn’t connect until 2036. I said look around across the fields for the nearest customer. It’s going to a university data centre. Now. Not 2036. This is a LibDem strength – favourably mentioned to me on the doorstep earlier in Tenbury. There the sword of Damocles hangs over a nonsense gaining traction, asking if Tenbury would end up being the first town to be abandoned. (Not in my watch). The spirit to defend every inch is local. 3100 councillors, running 70 councils we do what’s best and share best practice. We’ve been doing it since 1977. Yup you read that right. 1977 as the Ecology Group in the Party. So when you add our first principles on net zero to any policy development, it’s there in depth to support the free thinking that’s needed, to fit locally everywhere, with national data and skills to lean on to succeed.