A post on X from Luke Tryl, the UK Director of More in Common, the other day changed how I viewed the rise of the Green Party. The post was in response to the latest polling from Ipsos, which had us sitting on just 9%, the lowest we’ve polled since the 2024 General Election.
In the post he said, ‘If the Lib Dems go into May with the Greens eating at their progressive flank it could well limit their gains in e.g. the new East and West Surrey councils, Sussex and other south east districts’. As a longstanding member in Sussex this obviously concerned me, so I set about trying to disprove his notion.
Unfortunately, I now believe he may be correct. Firstly, while we often think of the rise of the Greens eating away at the Labour vote, which it most certainly is, our polling is not untouched. According to YouGov, those who voted Lib Dem at the 2024 election, and say they will again, stood at 80% in May 2025 but now sit at only 68%. While this is better than most other parties, only 44% of 2024 Labour voters say they’ll vote for the party again; it is a notable shift in our polling. Almost all of this change has been caused by the Greens, with only 3% of 2024 Lib Dems saying they’d vote for the Greens in May 2025 to now, when the figure stands at 17%.
The steady march of the Greens amongst 2024 Lib Dems is likely to pose real problems in the local elections. While it isn’t likely the Greens will take seats from us, it is possible they will prevent us from making gains by splitting our vote and allowing Reform or a wounded Conservative Party to slip through the middle. In Sussex, signs of this happening were occurring even before Zack Polanski took over the Greens. At Horsham District Council’s Denne by-election in November 2024, a strong showing from the Greens meant that a safe Lib Dem ward was gained by the Tories. A similar story occurred at Arun District Council’s Marine by-election, where Reform gained the seat, with us placing a close second due to the Greens standing a candidate for the first time.
With the Greens now having a stronger base of voters, they are more likely to cause us damage in places like Sussex, where we need to be making gains to consolidate our General Election wins.
Other polling also paints a difficult picture. While Ed Davey has remained one of the most popular party leaders, he has now been overtaken by Zack Polanski in an important metric, those who say they ‘don’t know’. According to Ipsos, 36% of voters don’t know their opinion on Ed Davey, while 33% don’t know about Zack Polanski. While this isn’t a major difference, Ed Davey has been party leader for 6 years and still has over a third of people not holding an opinion on him. In comparison, Zack Polanski has only been the Green leader for just over 6 months and has already overtaken Sir Ed.
This further highlights the threat the Greens pose to us as a party. They have filled the traditional space of the Lib Dems as the progressive alternative to a Labour government and have absorbed any increased media coverage we may have earned by being strong on Trump and other progressive issues.
So what can we do? Here in Sussex, I believe there are some simple steps for us to take to ensure we perform well in the local elections. Firstly, we need to listen to the Young Liberals when they tell us to ‘always eat your Greens’. This means not standing aside for Green candidates, not taking part in backroom electoral pacts and campaigning against them wherever we can. For inspiration, we should look to Lewes District Council, where we are the main opposition to the Greens and have run strong campaigns against them.
Additionally, we need to appeal to younger voters. 50% of 18-24 year olds say they will vote Green. We cannot allow them to dominate this group and further polarise our society along age-based lines. This means focusing on uncomfortable issues, like tuition fees, and highlighting our progressive record on LGBT rights. We should also move away from NIMBYism and give young voters policies that they can see will directly benefit their lives. Ultimately, to ensure our success at the upcoming local elections, we need to eat our Greens!
* Thomas Worth is the President of the Sussex University Liberal Democrats and was a local election candidate in West Sussex.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Kira Collins
Nonconformistradical
Tom Bailey
Katharine Pindar
paul barker
42 Comments
The first rule of Polling is not to get excited about single Polls.
Comparing all the Polls , almost all have Libdems in a range of 10% to 14% with The Greens between 11% & 21%. The most obvious point is the lack of agreement on where the Greens are, some Pollsters have them level with us , some have them way ahead.
The difference is down to a significant group of Voters who are torn between Labour & Green, they might jump either way.
Different polling organisations have different assessment systems. However there is little doubt that the Greens are going to make hundreds of gains and will hit us quite hard in London and the big cities. At the present time constituency polling suggests they are polling really heavy in about 100 parliamentary seats and Election Maps currently gives them 58 seats.
For too long many Lib Dems have ignored their threat and expressed sympathy for them, even ward alliances. Hopefully the blinkers are now off, Aigburth last week says it all, or it should do so.
A good article and I share your concerns (I am in Surrey). We also have a some local Green in parts of Horley, where there is a risk of Reform or Tories nipping in ahead of us to take seats.
For me I think that, as you put it, we do need to “move away from NIMBYism and give young voters policies that they can see will directly benefit their lives”. Hard agree on this. This needs to be, for example, a message that we will build houses so you can afford to buy a home and move out! That we will invest in infrastructure so you can get to work and live your lives, that we are committed to rebuilding our Europe relationship so you can have the opportunities your parents had.
@ Steve Wotton, As an expat Yorkie living in Scotland in what was a Lib/Lib Dem seat for 49 years until 2015, I’m afraid I have discouraging news. You shouldn’t be too surprised at what is happening given a policy vacuum combined with, I think, pointless stunts aimed at the prosperous middle class in ‘Middle England’. The shine can wear off that after a bit.
The two northern seats of Cheadle and Harrogate, and, in Scotland, the two suburban seats in Edinburgh and near Glasgow all fit the posh ‘Middle England’ profile. The party has thus got itself into an extremely vulnerable position by its ‘eggs in one basket’ policy. Trying to appeal and capture the southern bit of the UK, leaves a vacuum (policy and organisation) elsewhere. Historically take a look at 1923 and 1924 as an example of how votes can vanish like snow in the Spring.
Unless the party adopts a more radical economic stance towards the less prosperous parts of the UK, and inequalities there, it could be in big trouble. It may involve a change at the top and I notice murmurings on LDV – and also nervous apologies at not being ‘Northern’ enough at Conference. Betty’s, Mr Gordon, is posh – my Mum used to go there !!
We ought to have two good attack lines against the Greens:
That now they have largely abandoned talking about the environment and climate change, we are the true green party.
While they offer simplistic divisive stuff like blaming all our problems on wealthy people, we actually offer sound evidence-based solutions.
I say ought to. The trouble is, it’s a bit hard to claim to be green when our conference votes for subsidies for motorists and HQ sends out press releases condemning even a modest partial reversal of the 2022 fuel cuty reduction as a ‘hike’. And proclaiming sound evidence-based solutions would be a good deal easier if we actually were offering a well thought out economic plan, instead of pushing gimmicks like moving the treasury to Birmingham and talking about a ‘new Magna Carta’ (which would have almost zero impact on the economy or on most people’s day-to-day lives).
The Greens are currently benefiting from the ‘old parties, haven’t solved things, let’s try something new’ thing that has been benefiting Reform… Along with lots of media attention,
But making promises you can’t keep will catch up with them if they get into power anywhere and hit reality. Farage said this week he wished Reform hadn’t bothered taking over Worcestershire County Council, for instance.
As for the ‘Magna Carta’: introducing one won’t change lives. NOT doing so, on the other hand, leaves the UK open to all we’ve seen happening in the US.
We should leave Magna Carta in the 13th century with the Norman King John and his not-so-merry band of Norman Barons who happened, as a result of military conquest, to rule England at the time.
It is not the foundation for a modern democratic state that some seem to think. Take a look at what it actually says.
If we want a new Constitution for the 21st century United Kingdom, then this is what it should be termed. Not Magna Carta 2.0 !
On consideration, I have a problem with the whole idea of The Greens as a “Threat”.
The rise of The Far-Right is a Threat to everything we believe in; I feel Threatened.
The Greens are Rivals in The coming Elections & potential partners afterwards.
We would be in a better position to compete if we actually talked about Our Values.
PS I should say that I will be Voting Green in May. I live in a Green target ward & a vote for my own party would be wasted.
Agree with Peter Martin, King John wasn’t exactly a founding member of the Fabian Society.
We have to ask WHY the Green Party seems to be the vehicle of choice for those seeking to break with the stale old Labour/Tory duopoly? This was always the role the Liberal Party had when I became a member at age 18, but there is now a crowded field.
We often have a good profile at local level when we can prove how we get things done, but nationally we come accross as staid, middle class and middle aged. We seem to be adopting a posture of “don’t frighten the horses” in order to ensure ‘soft Tories’ who supported us in 2024 don’t revert to type for fear of Labour. That may have made sense then, but the Tory party shows no signs of returning to the centre ground and is merely ‘Reform lite.’ And talk of a new Magna Carta is all very well, but most younger people are more concerned about finding a decent job and being able to rent or buy a rood over their heads!
@David Raw as an exile Scot in England I know my home well (although I am actually from one of the suburban seats you mention!) I think I agree with you that we need more substance to offer people, but that comes back to how to improve real incomes and drive down costs for housing. The answer to both is investment and building. That, I think, can help everywhere.
@cassie – agree with you, some of this is “not Con or Lab” for sure. As we know, to our cost, there are a chunk of voters that will leave you when you get into government, regardless of what you do there.
I agree that the rise of the Greens poses a challenge. We haven’t been doing badly overall, but we don’t really have much of a message or distinctive policy offering.
I mean, the most radical thing they’ve suggested so far is moving part of the Treasury to Birmingham. It’s a good idea and addressing the problem of ‘Treasury brain’ could deliver real benefits to Brits. But a reorganisation isn’t going to excite voters – to them it sounds like politics as usual. It’s not all that surprising we’re being upstaged by the Greens.
But it also poses opportunities. Not only can the Greens win seats the Lib Dems can’t win, but they are showing that it is possible to present a progressive alternative to politics as usual’ and the far right. I thought Ed Davey was a good communicator, but Zack Polanski is saying many of the same things that a Lib Dem leader ought to be saying.
The Lib Dems’ best bet is to appeal to voters who want a progressive alternative but find the Greens too radical.
“Zack Polanski is saying many of the same things that a Lib Dem leader ought to be saying.”
Polanski is saying many of the things the Lib Dem leader IS saying. See Davey’s conference speech reported here only three days ago, and indeed has been saying for some time.
And Davey is saying of the other important things (constitutional reform (aka “Magna Carter”) and “strong defence” (our own independent nuclear deterrent) Polanski isn’t saying, at least not in my hearing.
[The Greens] are showing that it is possible to present a progressive alternative to politics as usual’
To what are the Greens (or any other of the “progressive parties” progressing?
@ Tristan Ward, “To what are the Greens (or any other of the “progressive parties” progressing?”
Sorry, Tristan, that’s a mind blowing question from a member of a self proclaimed progressive party. Are you really saying the state of the UK is hunky-dory, that nothing needs progressive radical political improvement, and that the Lib Dems ought to be a slightly more cosy version of the Tory Party ?
For a start take a look at the UN report on poverty in the UK. It’s available online. Philip Alston’s 2019 report on poverty in the UK (A/HRC/41/39/Add.1) is available through the UN Digital Library.
@Tristan Ward. I assume you mean Magna Carta. The word carter refers to a person who transports goods by cart.
The main thing the Greens offer is a new broom. The Lib Dems can’t do that.
Polanski is rowing back a little from his early populism, and seeking to look more responsible and capable of governing. By contrast, the Lib Dems seem to be moving in the opposite direction, with strident populist shouts of “Build British Nuclear Bombs!” and “Scrap the Treasury”, indicative of a desperation to get noticed.
Very soon, Farage threatens to gain control on some 25-30% of the popular vote, and organise the disastrous mass removal* of our ethnic minorities. Together, the Lib Dem and Green votes could easily be greater than 25-30%. Bringing that vote together could be the salvation of Britain.
* “Removal” of minorities by a Reform government is supposed to mean “expulsion”. At the same stage in their rise to power, the Nazis were also talking about expulsion.
@David. There seems broad agreement that there are many centrist voters who are homeless at present. Certainly the Tories have deserted the centre ground. You seem to be suggesting that we do likewise and head off in a leftward direction in order to fight with the Greens over these “progressive” voters ? Do we intend to tell the good people of Richmond, Cheltenham, St Albans, Harpenden and Carlshalton the good news ?
@ Chris Cory “Do we intend to tell the good people of Richmond, Cheltenham, St Albans, Harpenden and Carlshalton the good news ?”
All in poor old downtrodden ‘Middle England’, Christopher.
It would help if we were unequivocal and vocal in promoting our progressive policies rather than hiding them under a bushel for fear of offending anyone. Ed Davey saying we must develop a new iteration of British nuclear weapons and then objecting to having wildlife on our banknotes is sending a message to the next generation of voters – piss off, you’re not wanted here. Frankly, if I were 17 again and becoming politically aware, I wouldn’t vote for us.
@ David raw
“Are you really saying the state of the UK is hunky-dory”
No, obviously not. As the pre-amble says we recognise that the quest for freedom and justice can never end.
What I am asking is, what the political philosophy Labour and the Green are trying to put in place. Where are they going? Can they describe the Utopia they are trying to create? (*) And in particular is that philosophy robust enough to survive the three way collision between idealism, power and an ugly world?
(*) We can – it’s the preamble: a society that is fair, free and open, in which the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and balanced, and in which no-one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
@ David Raw
“the Lib Dems ought to be a slightly more cosy version of the Tory Party”
Right now the fear is that Britain (and the “West” ) is moving away from an admittedly imperfect but broadly liberal and democratic way of doing things towards a really nasty brand of populist ethno-nationalism/authoritarianism. Our job and duty as liberals and Liberal Democrats is to resist that regression. As Josh Babarinde (*) says, we have to be the antidote to Reform. And if defending the liberal and democratic status quo makes us “conservative” so what?
(*) MP for a Brexit-voting coastal constituency with high levels of deprivation.
@ Tristan Ward You suggest that Josh Babarinde is, “MP for a Brexit-voting coastal constituency with high levels of deprivation”.
Oh, come on, Tristan, according to the official Gov.UK. stats, “Eastbourne 014D is ranked around the middle for deprivation in England. Just over half (56%) of neighbourhoods in England are more deprived (ranked 19,032 out of 33,755 neighbourhoods)”
I suggest a trip from Tunbridge Wells to Rochdale, Preston, West Cumbria or Hartlepool (to name a few) ……. as well as the valleys in Wales or parts of the central belt in Scotland.
Tristan Ward 19th Mar ’26 – 8:03pm:
Right now the fear is that Britain (and the “West” ) is moving away from an admittedly imperfect but broadly liberal and democratic way of doing things towards a really nasty brand of populist ethno-nationalism/authoritarianism.
For me, the most extreme authoritarian policy so far this century has been the ‘command and control’ Net Zero agenda. I consider opposition to it as anti-authoritarian.
Once the voter has seen the Red~Blue Uni Party, you cant un-see it. Moreover, voters have spotted that this Uni party which has (jointly), let them down over many decades, also resides in the centre ground of politics. As such, any party (today), that claims to sit in the centre is automatically rejected.
How else would you explain the recent by-election in Manchester. Reflect on the fact that the party that came first (Green) were far left. The party which came second (Reform), were far right. The centrist parties lost or barley saved their deposit.
To say that voters are deeply angry with “centrists”, is the best I can do without using expletives. It might be a very un-welcome message, but I believe that the next GE will be between Far-Left v Far-Right, and it will be brutal.
O Dear. Many people still do not recognise that the world has moved on. Polanski is as much a threat to the UK as Farage. They thrive on problems and sow division. We need to recognise that we have to hold on to the one nation type middle England Tories in south England. Do not chase Polanski of to the populist extreme left.
I don’t think it’s that any party that sits in the centre will get rejected, more that any party that voters don’t feel represents them and that they can trust will get rejected. Labour and the Conservatives have both failed that test by virtue of both having been recently in Government, having been embroiled at least to some extent in sleaze, and having given the impression of being disconnected from peoples’ problems.
I don’t think the LibDems’ problem is being too centrist. Loads of voters, particularly moderate ex-Tories, are desperate for a non-extreme party that might actually represent them and make the UK better – and that shows in our electoral success in much of ex-Tory Southern and SouthWest England. Our problem is, lack of national visibility and lack of a clear and coherent message.
More in Common Polling this week regarding Greens as reported in Political Betting discussions.
“This poll brings good and bad news for the Greens, what I find the most interesting is that 33% of voters would consider voting for the Greens but that falls to 16% when the voters find out about Zack Polanski past comments about breast enlargement via hypnosis.
That feels harsh given some of the stuff other politician have come out with, but I expect the other parties will remind the voters about the comments but overall there’s plenty for the Greens to be happy with”.
The female vote fall even more when they learn of his stupidity.
We should not hesitate to use things like this to hammer them. Their policies are way out of line with political and international reality. It is up to us to hit hard and not cry on their shoulder.
There is a big difference between being centrist and being in the centre.
Centrism like populism defines itself by what other people believe. The ideal is to take a principled stand and move public opinion until you are in the centre of it.
The problem with a centrist position right now is that the people know what the problem is but don’t know how to fix it. That gives a big boost to anyone who claims to know where the paddle is.
“The ideal is to take a principled stand and move public opinion until you are in the centre of it. “
That is an almost perfect text book description of the strategy of Centrism which Tony Blair adopted from the Clinton administration back in the day. And it worked, right up until the day that it stopped working. It worked so well that David Cameron declared that he was the “heir to Blair”.
Sometimes politics can be far behind the curve of voter expectations. Grabbing voters by the scruff of the neck on the “principled left wing”, and-or the “principled right wing” and moving them to the centre is the very definition of a “Uni-party”
Voters proclaimed “They’re all the same” and they were correct. Centrism had become a game of feed your voters “left ideas” and-or “right ideas”, and slowly pull them into the middle of Uni-party government. But voters noticed the cynical game. I cant honestly say the day it stopped working, but the “centrism ploy”, as described perfectly, in your text book explanation, has absolutely stopped working. People now want “left wing sincerity” and or “right wing sincerity”. And as a result we are in for very turbulent times.
@ David Raw
“Eastbourne 014D is ranked around the middle for deprivation in England”
I am afraid you have selected a “Lower Layer Super Output Area, being between 400-1200 houses. It appears to be one of the wealthier parts of the Eastbourne constituency.
Eastbourne constituency as a whole ranks as no 189 on the list for deprivation (1 being the most deprived) out of 543 English constituencies. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10526/
Leaving that aside you have failed to address the bigger point, which is what is a “progressive” society? All you have said is we need “radical political improvement” and (by implication) reduction in deprivation. Any politician including Reform types – can say that.
@ Tristan Ward, you quote figures from the House of Commons Library. They reveal 188 constituencies are more deprived, some much more so, than Eastbourne, so I’m sorry but you’re over egging Mr Babarinde’s pudding.
You say, “Any politician including Reform types – can say that”. That’s a tad naughty, given I’ve chaired a Foodbank and been a Cabinet member for Social Work in Scotland. In 2019, I actually travelled south to present a copy of the UN Alston Report on Poverty in the UK to Ed Davey. Sadly, I’ve never come across any evidence of him referring to it….. have you, and indeed, have you read it ?
I’m afraid stunts and talk of being ‘the party of Middle England’ have their limitations.
@ David Raw
They reveal 188 constituencies are more deprived”
Its seem you believe Liberal Democrats should not contest any seat less deprived than Eastbourne and if we should be unfortunate enough to win such a seat immediately hand it over to another party
Tristan, nothing David has said supports a view that he thinks we should not contest seats less deprived than Eastbourne. Indeed for many years he has regularly expressed his concern at our collapse since 2010 in so many seats outside leafy suburbia.
You are much better than this sort of ill thought out keyboard rhetoric.
@ David Evans, thanks for the kind words, David. It appears Tristan has a vivid imagination.
For Tristan’s benefit let me clarify. For the last sixty years I have believed the party which I joined and was employed by (to quote Jo Grimond, the best Leader in my lifetime) should be “a radical party, a party of reform” in the proper sense of the latter word. Moreover, it should respect the electorate by making a real effort to secure their votes throughout the UK not just in the prosperous bits in the south. I did not get elected as a Councillor five times (either side of the Border) by just ‘flying a flag’ and putting a gloss on uncomfortable things.
The latest stuff about Churchill and the currency (given the gold standard fiasco) is a gimmick, shows a clear lack of historical knowledge and plays to a right wing tabloid audience,
The swing to the right by the party establishment (mostly based in the Home Counties) over the last twenty years and the antics of some of its Leaders has narrowed the party’s appeal, lost it much support in the rest of the UK, many activists, and made it vulnerable should the Tories ever revive. I’m not surprised the Manchester electorate voted as it did given the respect and effort shown towards it.
@ David Raw and David Evans
“It appears Tristan has a vivid imagination”
See David R’s post 19/3/2026 at 6.13 pm (and others).
“Do we intend to tell the good people of Richmond, Cheltenham, St Albans, Harpenden and Carlshalton the good news ?”
All in poor old downtrodden ‘Middle England’, Christopher.”
This rather contemptuous attitude to Liberal Democrat constituencies (along with the sneering reference to Tunbridge Wells at 9.35 18th March) which constituency is currently dealing with the effects of water privatisation) implies those constituencies do not deserve notice. David R also implicitly asserts Eastbourne is a constituency in “Middle England” (and not “deprived” despite there being around 350 wealthier seats in England) and was careless about the selection of evidence supporting that.
The fact of the matter is that there are 3 parties (*) fishing in the pond marked “deprived” and our party’s efforts to fish there over the last 100 years or so have not proved very successful. The Tories seem to be running after Trump along with Reform, and are still tarred with Brexit and climate denial. There is a gaping hole in the centre occupation of which is entirely consistent with Liberal values.
(*) Greens Labour and Reform.
@ David Raw
I have believed the party ……….should be “a radical party, a party of reform”
There is nothing in this that ruled out you supporting Thatcher – not for one moment you would have of course.
What does it actually MEAN – other than tax and spend – which the electorate has rejected time and again – as did Jo Grimond.
@ Tristan Ward, “There is nothing in this that ruled out you supporting Thatcher “.
That I obtained nearly 15,000 votes back in 1983 against a Thatcher Cabinet member ought to tell you what I think about that, Tristan, though I’m encouraged by your apparent disapproval of her water privatisation and, yes, I do support Keynesian economics (as did the 1983 manifesto).
Sorry if you think I’ve been unkind about Tunbridge Wells, though an AI search reveals, “Jokes about Tunbridge Wells often revolve around its reputation as a polite, affluent, and middle-class area, frequently referenced through the stereotype of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. I didn’t make that up.
I maintain that relying on so called, “Middle England” makes the party vulnerable when the tide changes – as it will.
That I obtained nearly 15,000 votes back in 1983 against a Thatcher Cabinet member ought to tell you what I think about that, Tristan”
Thatcher was undoubtedly “radical” and “reforming”, so merely saying you want “a radical party, a party of reform” means very little without more.
Why do you think that the policy ideas that failed to get Liberals into power throughout the 20th century when we were competing against only the Labour party will work now when we are competing for those same votes against Labour, Reform and Greens in a world that seems to be rejecting socialist and social democrat solutions?
Where are the successful stable and secure societies based on these principles?
Sorry, Tristan, but this is getting a bit tedious. Let’s leave it that .
You did well to get one of the better and brighter new Lib Dem MPs in 2024 (the first non-Tory since Alfred Paget-Hedges way back in 1906).
In local elections we can always fall back on our values of empowerment, competence, listening to the electorate and delivering what people want. I suspect what people don’t say is as important as what they do. Accepting that the Greens are on a rise and showing realistic expectations is more likely to keep and take votes that taking them on directly.