The public are very well acquainted with what the Liberal Democrats are against – Brexit, Donald Trump, the sewage scandal, and more.
But in this new, fragmented and up-for-grabs political landscape, we must ask ourselves: what do we stand for?
Last week’s King’s Speech outlined a raft of new Bills likely to be brought forward in this parliamentary session, and it presents us with the chance to show what bold, modern liberalism looks like in practice.
Not ‘eco-populism’. Not the politics of fear, hate or division. But a confident liberalism rooted in freedom, fairness, dignity, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives free from discrimination and unnecessary state intrusion.
There are several areas where that opportunity is staring us in the face.
First, conversion therapy
I believe this is now the fourth time a monarch has read out a government’s plans to bring forward a ban on conversion therapy. By now, many LGBT+ people, including myself, will understandably wonder whether such a ban will ever be delivered at all. Delay after delay, and repeated attempts to carve out exemptions from any such legislation, have stymied and frustrated governments of differing political persuasions.
If legislation does finally come forward, Liberal Democrats must be absolutely clear: a ban is only worth the paper it is written on if it is fully trans inclusive. A partial ban that excludes trans people would not only be morally wrong, it would undermine the very principle behind the legislation itself. And there should be no opt-out for religious institutions.
I am confident that I and my colleagues in the Commons and Lords will approach this boldly true to our liberal values. The country is often less divided on these questions than the world of social media would have us believe. Most people understand a simple principle: nobody should be subjected to coercive practices designed to deny who they are.
That is not a fringe position. It is a liberal one.
Second, leasehold reform
Labour promised to abolish the feudal and unfair leasehold system altogether. Instead, they now appear to be rowing back towards a far more limited proposal focused on capping ground rents. While any improvement for leaseholders is welcome, it risks leaving millions trapped in an outdated system that gives too much power to freeholders and too little security to homeowners.
For years, leaseholders have felt ignored, and this is precisely the kind of issue we should seize upon. It affects young people trying to get on the housing ladder, retirees facing spiralling charges, and families discovering they do not truly own the homes they believed they had bought.
Third, the return of digital ID
I must admit I was surprised to see this issue re-emerge so quickly after Labour’s rather humiliating climbdown and U-turn last year. Yet here we are again.
The debate around digital ID goes to the heart of the relationship between the individual and the state. There are legitimate conversations to be had around modernising public services and making identity verification easier. But there are also profound concerns around privacy, surveillance, data security, and mission creep.
There is a growing section of the electorate deeply sceptical of excessive state control, centralisation, and the erosion of personal freedoms. Too often, those voters are left with the false choice between authoritarian populism on one side and technocratic complacency on the other.
We should never cede the argument on civil liberties.
The answer to public concern about the state is not to indulge conspiracy theories or anti-politics populism. It is to champion individual freedom, democratic accountability, and proportionate responses from government. There is a case to be made here, and voters are looking for someone prepared to make it.
Each of the issues I’ve highlighted speaks to different parts of the electorate. But together they point towards something bigger: an opportunity for Liberal Democrats to define ourselves not just as effective local champions, but as a national liberal force with the confidence to shape the political debate.
The Greens increasingly offer protest politics, a version of reheated Corbynism. Whilst Reform’s offer is something that would make a snake oil salesman blush.
Neither provides a serious vision for the country – that space is ours for the taking, if we are willing to step into it.
This King’s Speech and the next parliamentary session give us the opportunity to do exactly that.
* Tom Gordon is the Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The pine martens of Shropshire
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
David Allen
Simon McGrath
Peter Davies
Rob Heale
Kira Collins
20 Comments
If that’s bold modern Liberalism, heaven help us. Individually, Ok but bold ? Conversion therapy (clearly needs a new description) should be banned but on a list of top 10 problems for the UK? The housing system is in crisis after 47 years of Thatcherism, hugely expensive to the tax payer yet ineffective in providing affordable housing. People in two income households can’t afford rents, yet their suffering is dismissed as “reheated Corbynism” the Party of Homes fit for Heroes, reduced to waffle about housing ladders as the system moves to feudalism far worse than leaseholds. Civil liberties – yes, lets have them in Gaza and the UK, but arguments on both sies about digital ID is not a rallying cry.
Tend to agree with Caractacus.
Disappointing. Not a broad sweep of radical liberalism, but a limited collection of three items appealing only to limited sections of the electorate.
Since when have liberals pooh-poohed protecting the rights of a minority that’s under fierce attack from government and media as “not of interest to lots of the electorate”? If they’re not interested that trans people are being forced out of public life they can well should be because if they let it happen to trans people it’ll happen to them sooner or later.
Tom Gordon asks : What should Liberal Democrats Stand for? I’m not surprised you are confused Tom, so am I, and even some Lib Dems are confused. How many times have Lib Dems said some generic form of:
“We need to better articulate what liberalism is, and why it matters to ordinary citizens”
“We need to explain what our Liberal values are, more clearly”
“Better Comms, to put forward what Liberals stand for”
So, why is there no *one-stop-shop* to read *exactly the current Lib Dem policy* underlining what Lib Dems stand for. So, why not put an extra click button here on LDV after [Theme], such as [LD at a Glance], outlining exactly what Lib Dem policy is? Maybe, something that could be printed off as a pdf, to hand out to those asking the question.
Bravo Tom Gordon!
Three excellent issues. I am not surprised the two commenters above are grumpy (when are they not?) but they should be reassured to know that Tom is generally not considered a loyalist in Parliament (rebelled on the vote to proscribe Palestine Action, for example) and publicly criticised Ed Davey at the Leader’s Q&A in Harrogate following the party’s lost deposit at the Wakefield by-election in 2022.
Leasehold reform in England and Wales probably affects some 30% of the electorate – those already living in leasehold properties and those who aspire to buy a flat. It is an excellent and thoroughly Liberal idea and reform is long overdue.
I’m going to stick up for Tom here. I read this as indicative, not a full manifesto, and on that basis I approve. We have here
– a socially deeply liberal reform against bigotry and enforced conformism
– an economic regulatory stance entirely in keeping with Berlinian liberalism (especially positive liberty)
– a principled anti-authoritarian position on civil liberties, on which every other party is muddled at best.
Add in human rights, internationalism backed up by (under current global circumstances) a robust but stable defence stance, and pragmatic, results-focussed environmentalism and that is the liberalism I am here for. Let’s apply the underlying principles of this post to everything.
None of these seem distinctively Liberal. They’re all good individual policies. I agree with them. Trouble is, Plaid Cymru and the Greens also appear to agree with all three (and the SNP the Scotland-relevant two), so where’s the specifically Liberal aspect?
Put another way, is there a policy so distinctively Liberal that every other major party would oppose it? Would the Lib Dems support it if there was?
Isn’t all of this party policy already? Banning conversation therapy isn’t even the number one priority for the Trans community right now, Tom Gordon must know this yet presumably he isn’t willing to fix equality act, otherwise he’d have mentioned it.
Shame!
As invariably happens with us, policies are being offered in place of a philosophy, rather than the other way around.
Might this article be more concerned with periferality instead of corenss?
Might this pair of relevant contrasts be helpfully used to assess and prioritise L. D. policies generally?
Might the socio-economic harms presented by the U. S.+ Israel war against Iran be a more pressing core matter?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/05/21/the-worlds-politicians-have-their-heads-in-the-sand-as-the-collapse-begins/
@ Ynis Mon Man………. Not grumpy, Mr Man, just more than a tad impatient with the more recent lack of radical direction and complacency in recent times since I first joined the old Liberal Party back in 1961.
Given that in my lifetime (Ynis Mon – Anglesey) has moved from being a Liberal held parliamentary seat to sixth place with just on 1% of the vote, you might concede I have some reason to be a tad grumpy.
For the first time in years (decades?) I didn’t vote Lib Dem this May. The lack of clear direction from the party is frankly heartbreaking. So I was pleased to see this headline from my closest LD MP. But I am so disappointed – this tells me very little about what the party should stand for. Three policies: one I fully agree with; one I think is way more complex than is being presented here; and one where I would actively disagree. I suspect very few people would have their vote swayed by any of these. The party needs more vision than this to recover people like me as a former voter, volunteer and member.
Tom… Green Party policy is anything but ‘reheated Corbynism’! Green policy is and always has been underpinned by protecting nature, humans as part of nature. This means we Greens eschew neoliberalism (which assumes the market is in charge) whereas Labour, including Corbynism and LDs still espouse the neoliberal paradigm.!…a massive difference in underlying attitude.
If you search google for google for Liberal Democrats values top of the list is:
https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
@ Shan Oakes
“This means we Greens eschew neoliberalism (which assumes the market is in charge” etc
This is all very nice fluffy stuff, but if humans are part of nature, we are and always will be subject to evolution/survival of the fittest etc. That means competition – which is what happens in markets – will be always with us whether we like it or not. Species that endure either avoid competition by doing things other species don’t, or out compete the rest so as to exclude others from exploitation of resources. Unless of course you think Darwin was wrong.
And you are quite wrong to say that liberals espouse neoliberalism. To do that is to be only half a liberal. Economic liberalism – yes because that generates wealth that most people quite like and enables freedom – but social liberalism is essential as well. And to say that Corbyn “espouses neoliberalism” is as silly as saying that Farage is a one nation Conservative.
Where I expect you and I will agree is to say that maintaining a sustainable environment is more important that everything else. And a diverse ecosystem is far more likely to be sustainable.
.
“Might the socio-economic harms presented by the U. S.+ Israel war against Iran be a more pressing core matter?”
It certainly is – and it might be worth mentioning among the navel gazing (*) that there is one party that is calling out Trump as an international gangster.
Any prizes for guessing which party that is?
(*) During 40 odd years of membership I can’t recall a time when there were not complaints about lack of attention for the Lib Dems. Except of course when we had actual power which is the point of it all. During my lifetime we have progressed from 12 always insecure MPs to (I believe ) 72 pretty well entrenched ones.
@Tristan Ward – Sorry, but I’ve got to push back on the Darwinian framing. Yes, humans are part of nature, but “survival of the fittest” was never a licence to read the rules of the jungle into human society. Darwin himself wrote at length about cooperation, sympathy, and moral instincts as adaptations that helped humans flourish.
The interesting fact about humans isn’t that we compete. It’s that we cooperate at a scale no other species manages. Complex language, shared norms, institutions, contracts, money, the rule of law are foundational human features that makes complex life possible.
Markets themselves are cooperative structures: they only function because of trust, enforceable rules, and shared expectations. A market without cooperation is just looting.
So I’d agree economic liberalism matters. But it matters because it harnesses cooperation, not because it sanctifies competition.
Agree that Leasehold Reform should be more about Leasehold abolition. The feudal based Leasehold housing system is expensive, inefficient, outdated and unjust. Long-Leaseholders pay for everything, Internally and Externally though have little control over their own homes. The FIVE MILLION existing Leaseholders deserve better than this enslavement within an unjust system. Scotland and ireland changed long ago and so can we in England and Wales. Time for fairer Commonhold housing.
Couldn’t agree more with Tom’s excellent post – two of those three bills amongst many others are fundamentally around our party’s key priorities – human rights, basic core values of dignity, freedom to be who are, recognition how supporting LGBTQ+ community is central to Liberal political beliefs as the first party in the early 1970s called for Equality for LGBT+ community – conversion therapy is one of the most hideous practices and needs to be outlawed and trans inclusive.
Secondly, the ID debate – we’ve been here before and Labour at it again – authoritarian measures to infringe personal liberty and freedom – again core values which Liberals have always championned.
If people have a problem with Tom’s key bills may I quietly suggest there in the wrong party!
What we stand for is shown in our constitution. How they are applied in policy will vary. Often we want to alter the balance between different values slightly for instance towards fairness following a Conservative regime or to show more caution in spending following a Labour one. A good current example is providing incentives for employing young people.