It’s a few years into a Labour government, who are making unpopular decisions. And in the London elections – we surge to power as the biggest party, or main opposition party, in Lambeth, Southwark, Brent, Camden, Islington and many other London boroughs.
2002 was a great year for us in London, and other cities where we fought Labour. We leapt forward as progressive voters switched from Labour to us.
By contrast in 2026 our vote share in inner London boroughs was the worst since 1978. We aren’t running any inner London boroughs. We are only even the main opposition party in one, Brent.
This isn’t just a London, or a city, problem though. Our 2026 local election vote share of 14% is worse than in the coalition year of 2011 – and our lowest in 8 years.
Why is this?
The youthfulness of modern cities seems an easy place to turn for an answer – dominated as they are by working age people. But this is simply a sign of our failure to reach these voters.
Liberal values in Britain are, generally, most strongly held by younger people. We should be doing much better among the working age voters.
We have this opportunity – but why aren’t we exploiting it?
Pollster Chris Annous points out that most voters do not believe that the Liberal Democrats actually want to change our country. In fact they see us as representatives of the status quo, alongside Labour and the Conservatives. And the public desperately wants to see Britain changed.
Voters are opting for the Greens in huge numbers not because of their policies, but because they are offering change. Many voters will even agree that Green policies are wildly unrealistic, and even possibly a bit deranged. But they still vote Green because they seem to be the only progressive party offering change. “Make hope normal again” is a brilliant slogan to articulate the idea of change.
Our shortfall this year is because our party has failed to articulate a consistent vision, or as marketers would call it, a brand.
Go to our website, and our party social media feeds, and we don’t even have a consistent slogan today. On asking activists recently I got a wide variety of answers, more commonly ‘I am not sure’.
If we are going to succeed we need to show people both how we are better than, and different from other parties. And we need to communicate this consistently.
Look at what we are saying nationally day to day, and the problem is clear.
Our local election launch promised to ‘fix the church roof’. I’m sure this seemed like a clever way to appeal to soft Conservatives. But it also makes no sense to the vast majority of working age British people because it makes it sound like the Liberal Democrats are the party of gentle tinkering at the edges, rather than a force to change our country for the better.
And our national policies do very little right now to build a consistent picture in the voter’s minds.
On the cost of living, the NHS, crime and housing, we aren’t saying anything distinctive – because we are not willing to risk being unpopular with anybody. If we believe in higher public spending, then we need to justify how we would pay for it. If we want cheaper rents, we need to explain how new houses are going to get built.
And on crime we have an incredible story to tell about our achievements to protect women and girls from violence and abuse. Over the last 11 years Liberal Democrat MPs have brought in laws on domestic abuse, banning upskirting and revenge porn. But we have completely failed to take advantage of these achievements, because we campaign on the same crime issues as every other party. We, rightly, think that violence against women is a national scandal. We need to focus on that accordingly.
And we know, as do the voters, that almost every Liberal Democrat wants to rejoin the EU. We know it won’t happen tomorrow. But if we are too scared to say that’s what we want, then voters will naturally conclude that we don’t have the courage of our convictions.
We can take heart from two areas where we have been consistent in recent years.
Our fight against sewage in Britain’s rivers has been excellent. We have gained recognition by continually pushing home an attack, day after day, year after year.
And, more recently, our attacks on Reform have shown us standing up for our values. But we’ve not focused enough of our effort on these attacks – meaning that we haven’t gained the credit that we deserve.
I am desperate for us to succeed. Britain needs our liberal voice, and we have to beat Reform and the Greens, as well as the traditional big two. But if we want to succeed in the years to come, we need to take more risks. The sign of our success won’t just be more votes, it will be more attacks, from the right people. If we’re being attacked, we are being noticed.
In 1963 our former leader Jo Grimond told us that he was going to march towards the sounds of gunfire. In 2026 that is a safer option than cowering in our foxholes.
* Rob Blackie was Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate in 2024, achieving the best result for 16 years. He has beaten the Greens in competitive elections as an organiser or candidate in 2010 (twice), 2012, 2024 and 2026. https://bsky.app/profile/robblackie.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
37 Comments
“And the public desperately wants to see Britain changed.”
There is a paradox here.
I suspect the change people want is back to stability and certainty , that there are more of the perceived “good times” before the financial crash.
Wise words Rob I hope the party leadership and our MPs will reflect on this article and learn some lessons.
I very much agree with the thread of Rob’s article. Many people either have no clue as to what we are about or assume we are part of the establishment; some assume that our main purpose is liberal on sexual matters and allow all immigrants to come in. The ‘fix the church roof’ message was the wrong way to convey our reputation for good local council activity and in any case we are now in a time when people want an inspiring national message. I was disappointed when Ed said it was fine for people to say they are not liberal supporters but like our local councillors; that is surely not enough if we are to make long term progress.
Another factor in our campaigning is that our MPs do not spend enough time going round the country engaging with people; our excellent efforts in Parliament are not known by almost everyone outside the party and even by many of our members and much of our MPs’ speeches achieve little in practice because we are not in power. The latter is another negative factor because even those who sympathise with our approach do not believe we can be powerful enough to achieve much.
A piece on the economy by Roz Savage is relevant here:
“A clearer liberal story
There is also a political opportunity here.
Too often, politics feels like a competition over who can best manage a failing system. But people are looking for something more fundamental: a sense of direction. A sense that the system is working for them.
Wellbeing economics provides that.
It allows us to say, clearly, that the purpose of the economy is not simply to grow, but to serve human flourishing. It connects the issues people care about – the cost of living, the NHS, their community, their environment – into a single, coherent story.”
Rob Blackie is right. But changing the captain won’t alter the direction of the ship without clearly explained policies to change the UK and get us out of this mess. We must be an insurgent party, unafraid to upset some people, not timid for fear of turning some voters off. If the current leadership doesn’t take up this challenge then maybe…
Excellent analysis, Rob. Completely agree. Is anyone listening in the Leader’s office?
Meanwhile interest rates on the financial markets are up to near 30 year records because of fears that Stamer’s departure as Prime Minister leads to fears of a more left wing government that would abandon Ruth Reeve’s spending rules.
That means more tax revenue needed to pay interest, and less to spend on important stuff like defence, getting to net zero, schools, health, benefits…….
The parties that succeeded on Thursday had clear ideas of the change they were proposing:
Reform wants to change the number of immigrants coming to the UK,
The Greens want to tax the rich more to pay for free things for the rest of us,
Plaid Cymru wants to change the relationship between Wales and the rest of the UK.
Can anyone suggest a clear idea of what we want to change? (Change the voting system, perhaps, but anything else…that could motivate voters?)
I agree strongly, and with Nigel Jones.
Last week I came across a piece in the ‘Herald’ on Adam Smith (1723-90), often represented as the father of capitalist thinking, but actually a proponent of the core aim of human flourishing. In full:
‘He began by questioning what we mean by wealth. In his view it was not the accumulation of gold or the enrichment of a narrow elite, which were the established views of his time. Instead, wealth for Smith was the capacity of people to enjoy the “necessaries, conveniences and amusements of human life”.’
There have been a number of comments and articles on this site saying something similar to this but where can we have effective discussion across the wider party? I suggest conference. In the current situation we need to spend less conference time on new detailed policy and more on what we primarily stand for in current circumstances, our overall vision for the future and what sort of message we want to send to the electorate. I fear it may already be too late to do this for our next conference but hope that something can be done. We started a little last year when we had a Q&A on how to combat Reform UK but we need more of this and more time to challenge; on that occasion for example, I thought the response from the panel to my question was totally inadequate.
@ Tristan Ward I’m afraid there have to be limits to your ruthlessness, especially when discussing Ms Rachel Reeves, the Member for Leeds West.
The word Change is overused at election time by everyone including the incumbants that might have been in power for many years.
I put it to you that the change that we crave is a sort of return to the optimism of our childhood when no obstancle seems insurmountable. What we want is comfort and excitement.
We want to not struggle economically personally.
We want an economically strong country
We want a functioning health service that is actually world leading
We want to stop people around us exploiting the system mmaking it unfair
We want a powerful country in defence terms
We want a continous array of national pride moments, such as winning the worl cup and olympics
We do not want to live gloomy lives, we want optimism supported by the abive example list.
Newcomers such as the populists on the left and right offer small aspects of that, and a significant proportion of the population jumps on those because they have little else to grab onto. These populists offer change from the gloom.
@ David Raw
Which bit of what I said is not correct?
All other things being equal, increasing interest rates on the gilt markets means there is less money to be spent on other things – as Liz Truss discovered, and as anyone else who gets government spending and income out of kilter will discover will too if they try it.
I agree, great article Rob! I hope HQ is listening. For being in London, they certainly do not know how to reach Londoners. May not help that the CEO is remote in the shires.
@ David Raw
I expect the markets to be pretty ruthless if they decide government debt might not be repaid. Don’t you?
Ellyott is correct when he says,
“These populists offer change from the gloom.”
That is not just true, but encapsulates the political angst of the moment. At another time we might ask, who created the gloom, who is hurting from the gloom, and who is doing “very nicely thank-you”, by maintaining the gloom?
But in the present (polar opposite), war against “the gloom”, I seriously don’t think either the extreme Left or extreme Right, know for sure, if their extreme (and at times bonkers), policies are the answer. All they (L&R) know is that they MUST wrench the “steering wheel” of power from those establishment figures, who are happy to keep the gloom running as it is, because it suits their interests.
For sure, the Red~Blue Uniparty is busted.
To put it at its simplest – The Greens have been loudly proclaiming Liberal Values while Our Party has been Quiet.
Why is The Party Leader calling for a return to EU Membership Polanski ?
@Tristan Ward There is no question of government debt not being repaid. A country with its own currency cannot run out of money, though it may need to increase taxation to keep inflation under control. And gilts could be handled differently, to reduce the power of the gilt markets that we are supposed to be so frightened of. Until the Thatcherite ‘reforms’, the Bank of England used to borrow from itself to whatever extent it chose, effectively running up an interest-free overdraft. And in the Covid emergency, the policy of quantitative easing led to a much larger National Debt, but one where 30% was owed by the government to itself.
“Can anyone suggest a clear idea of what we want to change? ”
On the whole I think what Liberal Democrats want is incremental change rather than revolution, both as a reaction to external events and in driving change forward. That of course is a very old liberal (Whig) idea – to reform in order to preserve – and has proved rather successful.
.
Some might say that is too conservative (note small “c”) to be acceptable. But if you think (as I do) that the alternative progressive ideas on offer (socialism and “greenery”) are either historically failed (socialism) or are without any kind of coherent political and philosophical basis (*) I think liberal democracy is the best on offer.
(*) Save the world” doesn’t count as a philosophy – but it is a very sound policy that I entirely support. How to achieve it politically and practically is another question .
Paul Barker writes,
“Why is The Party Leader calling for a return to EU Membership Polanski ? “
This whole Green Party coalition of unconnected & disparate entities, frankly, make no sense. Maybe, a different approach of thinking to work out what the new “Greens” are?
History shows that you need not just warriors, but crazed warriors to help with an overthrow task. Could it be that the logic of forming a party around Polanski, is to create a “Berserker coalition” of disparate “mini” interests, to manufacture a voting “battering ram” It seems the old “Green” party has been invaded and turned into a “host”. The objective seems to be to garner mini and micro group votes, such as islamic, anti-semite, ultra left, just stop oil, open borders, angry EU remainers, (add to the list here!). That, these unconnected groups are willing to cast their votes jointly behind a non-serious charlatan like Polanski, maybe gives us a bigger picture. This new extreme Left (under the banner of “Green”), going into the next GE, are,,, for the want of a better phrase “Unionised disparate Berserkers”, willing to “pool their votes” into a Left wing battering ram to take on the establishment.
I love how the country wants ‘changes for the better’ ; however, no one wants to accept the tax rises that have to pay for it..
I agree wholeheartedly with Rob. While we have achieved more than I expected, the direction of travel the leadership has chosen for the party, chasing disillusioned Conservatives, is running out of road.
Ed IS a bold and effective TACTICIAN but honestly not a Charismatic, ideas person. Up against Nigel Farage and Zac Polanski we need to be BOLD and BRILLIANT, to sharply differentiate ourselves but this is not happening.
We need well-thought out
Sorry Tristan Ward. I am reminded of the old joke. “What do you want? We want gradual change. When do you want it? In due course”.
When I joined the party in 1964, it was an insurgent party, seeking radical changes over a wide range of areas. Our problem was, people didn’t think we could win. Now? A rather timid party, afraid of its own shadow and fearful of saying anything that might offend.
Castro once said “When you issue a revolutionary proclamation from the barricades, it all looks easy from afar. It is far more difficult making the revolution from the seat of power”
We’re not even issuing mildly radical proclamations!
We need a radical manifesto for all the things mentioned on this thread and others and we need a plan to implement it.
We need to attract those voters who have despaired of decades of Labour/Tory misrule, who are fed up with pandering to the uber rich and who, because we are not offering them hope, have turned elsewhere instead.
Our leadership must grasp the nettle or make way for people who will.
Well said, Mick Taylor.
“A little bit of this and a little bit of that” didn’t inspire that generation of Liberals who saved and rebuilt the Liberal Party in the early 1960’s.
@expats
The shared wisdom accross the political spectrumand commentariat is that the tax burden is the highest it has ever been. Thus further increases will be resisted, particularlu as they will probably only service the debt rather than add value.
The out of control welfare budget and other out of control expenditures needs to be resolved first then I hope that some modest tax increases would be acceptable if they supported real growth. However, if we get real sustained growth in the size of the budget then tax rises are not necessary.
@ Denis @ Tristan,
Denis is factually correct. The Government can never involuntarily default on its debts if they are denominated in £. The Govt can set interest rates to whatever it likes. It could borrow interest free from the BoE if it wished – so why doesn’t it? I know I’d rather pay 0% than 5% or whatever.
It pays out interest to encourage the rest of us, including our overseas trading partners, to save. If it wants us to save more it pays higher levels of interest. It doesn’t borrow in the normal sense of the term. It’s more like a bank taking in deposits. If it forces interest rates down the value of the pound will fall, so we can interpret the rise in interest rates as a sign that the Govt is concerned about the value of the pound.
It wants to prevent a run on the currency. Curiously if it wants us to save more it also means it wants its debt to rise. But, no chancellor would actually say this publicly. However it is easy to see the Govts debt is everyone else’s asset. If, for example, you own some Premium Bonds you have an asset which is also the Govt’s debt.
So do increased interest payments restrict the Govt’s ability to spend. Only if higher interest levels mean higher inflation. However, we’re usually assured it is the other way around.
@Peter Martin
I was rather thinking Denis was nicking your favourite line there!
I would agree with Rob. Young clever people will see that business as usual in the UK will not even get the the prospects of a good life that their parents had. A government that sets out to change this will have to take on those who rigged our society to work for billionaires and mobile offshore capital. Such as fixing the tax code.
This would upset some people. Which is fine with the Greens.
The Tories and Labour are seen as status quo parties. Also the lot who were in Coalition and have not been heard from since. Oh. The Lib Dems.
The apparent insurgents are Reform and the Greens. Reform are backed by the same crowd as the Tories but this is not headline news. It is not fair. It never was.
Thank you Rob – this is clear and coherent. We do need a shake up – our Westminster team could make far better use of the talents and backgrounds of our MPs, for example; and the leadership team could be larger – after all, we’re not a party of 8 any more! That can help open them up to new ideas that link into your argument.
A clear message, with a simple slogan we can repeat always. MPs in portfolios because of life experience. And maybe, perhaps, we could get into some fights for social liberal values more loudly and proudly. We were elected to lead, after all!
A good article and a lot of sensible comments here.
We are and always have been an anti-establishment radical party. We might forget sometimes. But we understand the damage done by concentrations of power in ways the radical right and radical left do not. Sure, they can blame everything on immigration or the rich and fire up the troops easily, but neither will deliver a better life for the people with such nonsense.
Here’s the problem. If we’re not radical left or radical right, what kind of radical are we? Radical liberals? Maybe, but what does that even mean? We’ll never agree never mind anyone else. Radical centre? It sounds like a contradiction in terms.
And anyway can’t we be moderately liberal, centre-left adjacent and still seek radical solutions to the big problems? You bet we can. There just isn’t a word for it.
“Our shortfall this year is because our party has failed to articulate a consistent vision, or as marketers would call it, a brand.” I don’t agree with us. We have been very consistent with a brand that involves upsetting people as little as possible, especially not the comfortable south east voters who gave us lots of seats at the last election. But it’s the wrong message for most of the country fr whom the prospects are quite bleak. We need to promise change, and show how we’re going to do it. I have my own ideas here; https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-most-unfortunate-result-possible-79698.html
It is true that Reform and the Greens are cutting through with their message to various groups. However these parties are populists – they offer simplistic, unrealistic solutions to complex problems in order to grab votes (and attention). We as LDs simply cannot match that. We should be offering radical, but workable policies to the electorate. They won’t get the headlines that populist policies will, but that’s not a reason to abandon them. The stability of a consistent radical message is what many are craving.
@ Tristan,
““Can anyone suggest a clear idea of what we want to change? ”
Richmal Compton, via the character of Ginger in the Just William books, suggested that:
” there’s Lib’rals an’ they want to make things better by alterin’ them jus’ a bit, but not so’s anyone’d notice….. ”
Whereas
“.. Conservatives… want to make things better by keepin’ ’em jus’ like what they are now…”
and
“… Socialists….want to make things better by takin’ everyone’s money off ’em, an’ there’s Communists an’ they want to make things better by killin’ everyone but themselves.”
I wouldn’t agree with the last one but I think she might a point generally.
Great article, Rob, but since you have done it , please tell us how you managed to beat the Greens, apparently several times. Advice needed as their rivalry with us is increasingly successful.
@ Katharine.
One possibility is to occupy the genuinely green ground that the Green Party looks to have vacated – at least partially. This means taking on the water Utility companies as well as the fly-tippers who are an easier target. But will the LibDem right block such policies?
Campaign for all bottles to returnable etc. This means taking on the likes of Coca Cola. But, again, this could be a step too far for Lib Dems. It looks to me, as an outsider, that the LibDems want to be radical without making too many enemies – especially those in positions of economic power. But I don’t see how you can avoid that if you do genuinely want to change things.
@Peter Martin – I don’t know many Lib Dems who would have a problem with taking on Water companies, Soft drinks manufacturers etc. We just lack a central party capable of organising those campaigns or getting anyone to notice if we did.
Thank Rob and others, you have helped me feel a bit better after losing to the Greens last week. My mood hasn’t been helped by Ed saying that he is happy with losing voters to the Greens. We need ideas and look like the people we represent (or hope to), that includes disabled people, who haven’t forgiven us for what we did in Coalition. We just seem to be happy to represent some parts of the country, not all.
People talk about cutting welfare, which will include pensions, but if we cut that, then disabled people will feel alienated from us. We need to be representative of all the community- black, white LGBT+, disabled, old and young. But we are not heard because we don’t rock the boat like Polanski and Farage.