The BBC reported last Friday that Charlie Maynard, the MP for Witney, has called for a no confidence vote against Ed Davey. For me this has been a long time coming, as I have heard constant rumours circling about the wider Party losing faith in him, but for many this has been a devastating example of Party infighting which will do us little good in the long-term. However, an internal coup is nasty business for everyone involved, if you fail after launching one it can destroy your career, if you lose against one it is an embarrassing end-note to your career, (see: Starmer) so they are never usually attempted without there being a strong sense that the majority opinion will get behind it.
Typically, I have seen Ed’s defenders make three major points in his favour
- Ed has brought us our best result since 1923.
- This is a distraction from….?
- There is nobody suitable to replace him.
The first point to me has ultimately become meaningless. Yes, he brought us good results, and honestly I think he was probably the right leader for the 2024 General Election, but that does not mean he is the right leader now; in 2024 we had a deeply unpopular Conservative Party who suffered a decline in vote share (-19.9%) comparable to our own in 2015 (-15.2%), a bland Labour Party Leader who mostly coasted off of this, and a Reform and Green Party that weren’t yet ready to make a major breakthrough. None of these factors are in play now, and I can’t think of a single major thing we have achieved with our 72 MPs to further the cause of Liberalism, no moment like the Gurkha Justice Campaign vote or the repeal of Section 28. We have been ineffective opposition, too scared to stand up for an issue the Government is ignoring and make them retreat in a big way, and a failure of the Parliamentary Party can only be the fault of the Leader of the Parliamentary Party, and unfortunately for Ed Davey it’s him.
If we won 20 less Seats in the next General Election, but were so wholehearted about our principles our vote share went up everywhere else, I think I would appreciate it more, for the point of politics is to convince people of the argument, not watch a number go up or hold power. As a Party that is the wholehearted enemy of Brexit, we can surely remember the influence UKIP wielded in creating this mess despite being far further from power than we ever were.
As to this being a distraction, I have to ask what from? Our declining polling? Our lack of press coverage? We can blame the Press themselves for this if we want, but as I just mentioned we aren’t exactly giving them anything much to chew on. Conference has passed many motions worth shouting about, Trans Rights, Mutualising our failed Water Companies, but instead the leadership has ignored these, being more comfortable to just announce their own policy, often to the criticism of the Press, whether that be going against our own policy with the Mansion Tax, or inventing an ill-thought out Tax Cut. If anyone has been distracting from our policy it’s Ed.
Now the question of who will replace him is where it gets interesting, because ultimately it is a valid question; because our MPs haven’t had the best material to work with, their ability to make their case without being seen as going against the Party-line was harder, but this should not be seen as disqualifying the idea of a leadership race entirely, a healthy debate is important to find out where candidates stand and to present alternative futures for the Party. That is to say, I think there is an alternative to this Vote of No-Confidence.
But if Ed truly believes his vision is the best course for the Party, surely he shouldn’t be afraid of agreeing to a free Leadership Race? Promising any candidate that runs against him that they will not be prejudiced from any position they hold currently or could hold in the future, ensuring alternatives can be heard without a fear of repercussions. If the members agree with him after hearing alternatives then he should expect to be returned to power easily to run for the next General Election as he clearly wants to. I believe that if anything, this would be much less pain for all of us than this apparent coup, but then again, karma does bite us all eventually.
If it is not clear already, I am of the mind Ed should go, but if he does, should do it with dignity, or at least give members a choice to reaffirm their confidence in him, if not, he only has himself to blame.
* Rosemary Runswick is a Liberal Democrat activist in West Suffolk. She writes a blog at the Green Ribbon Club (https://greenribbonclub.blogspot.com/p/about.html).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The old Pontesbury magistrates court and police house are for sale
Cllr Kieran Dams, previously with Greens, joins Lib Dems
Oh no, it can't be Christmas already.
Labour's freeze on housing benefit to increase poverty
Alex Macfie
Mick Taylor
Jonah Weisz
Judy Abel
53 Comments
There is no point gaining political capital if you’re not prepared to spend political capital. We should have a foot in the door with our MPs now. tory/reform/labour bashing in a bud to get to 100 is pointless. We must set out our own vision for the country. Davey can’t do this so he must go.
Good article, well made point re UKIP.
As a long-term Lib/Lib Dem voter, I have a great respect for Ed Davey. I believe him to be a sincere caring man who, as we know, delivered the best “centre party” result in my lifetime. However, whether we like it or not, the media – and I suspect the general public – are much more enamoured with a “new kid on the block” than long-term leaders. This reflects the sad state of the political discourse wherein there is a demand for “new” ideas and solutions because the “old” ones have failed. I’m not sure that this is fair, but it’s certainly a perception, not least reinforced through social media. In a world where parties/party leaders thrive on division and stir up hatred (such as Mr Farage and Mr Polanski,) we desperately need someone to speak up for the values of consensus or at least a respect for differences. I think it needs a new voice to articulate this. It seems unfair on Ed Davey, but feels like the only way to cut through.
“If we won 20 less Seats in the next General Election, but were so wholehearted about our principles our vote share went up everywhere else, I think I would appreciate it more, for the point of politics is to convince people of the argument, not watch a number go up or hold power”
This is nonsense – the point of politics is to change the world. You do that by getting people elected.
@Richard have you read Roz Savage’s latest work for compass? I found it a very compelling articulation of a lot of thoughts I’ve been having fro a while. Perhaps she could be the Party’s next leader?
This article says exactly what many of us think. I like Ed, I’d like to see him go with dignity(maybe to Lords as an elder statesman for the party and country) and for the smart, and often silenced, new class of MPs to make their cases to the members via a leadership election. We don’t need a leader hanging on past effectiveness and then anointing a successor based on loyalty to him vs party. And many would prefer an ugly battle. The most important skill set of a leader is knowing when it’s time to stand aside gracefully and let people more suited to the moment take charge. That moment is now. I hope Sir Ed listens.
Thank you, Rose. Very helpful link
I’ve not much to add to the points made in the article, or in the comments already made. However the decisive test for a leader at this stage of the political cycle is whether they can deliver a speech or interview that makes a politically uncommitted voter think: “That is an interesting argument, and I hadn’t thought about the problem in that way before.” I don’t think Ed passes this test, but an open debate would allow members to assess whether there are other MPs that might.
This smacks of the party in the coalition years…Any criticism of Clegg went from “It’s too early to change” to, “It’s too late to change” without ever getting “It’s time for change”..
In the end the electorate made the choice for us..
Yes they did but Lib Dems for Change tried as well, all 250 odd of us. But we were still accused of treachery at the time. How different things are now when the party has 72 MPs! It just doesn’t make sense.
It’s important we recognise that Ed did not ‘bring us our best result since 1923’. He presided over it. The 2024 result was mostly a function of the Tory tide going out to the largest extent in 200 years, combined with savvy voters knowing who to vote for to get them out in their seat. We increased our vote share by 0.7% between 2019 and 2024; I refuse to believe that the difference in seats was purely down to brilliant targeting – we have been targeting since the 1990s after the high vote share/few MPs experience of the Alliance elections. The same thing as 2024 happened in the 1990s – lower vote share in 1997 than 1992, but 46 MPs vs. 2020. The difference – collapse in Tory vote between the two elections and most of our targets being Tory facing, as they are now. If Tories recover and Reform fade, we will only be able to look on as our MPs lose, however brilliant they have been locally and however much we target. To get control of our electoral destiny we need to get hold of our vision and message and get voters behind it.
Well, after last night’s meeting of the parliamentary party in Westminster and the overwhelming endorsement of Ed’s leadership some people have been left with egg on their faces this morning. However, if it means that Ed changes course slightly and stops making silly policy pronouncements on-the-hoof then I suppose that this boil-lancing exercise will have been worth it.
OK fine. SirEd survives. I had not yet come to calling for him to go but to increase a media presence. What we must not do now is shift to the left.Tax cuts as proposed were fine fine but perhaps a little large We also need to emphasise more our approach to Defence.
@ Tim Rogers, “OK fine. Sir Ed survives”. I think you’ll find, Tim, that once a ship gets damaged below the water line, it eventually sinks ………………, and as Browning once wrote, “it’s never glad confident morning again”.
The last thing we need at the moment is a leadership election. They’re usually divisive and what we need is a united approach to holding this government to account whilst still calling out the Tories.
Ed has assured the PLDP of changes. Let him deliver that before we hear further talk of leadership changes. As it turned out, there was no real challenge, just a lot of hype on social media and in the press.
Where I’d agree with Mick Taylor is to quote from Billy Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly”.
The Greens & Labour have b both changed Leaders in the past Year, both saw big increases in support following those changes.The Greens in particular got an extra MP & hundreds of Councillors following a healthy Leadership contest.
Why should we be so different ?
@PaulBarker. And where are the Greens now?
The jury is still out on Burnham.
Both bounces were/are essentially short term.And Labour didn’t have a contest at all, just a coronation
Yeovil Yokel 14th Oct ’26 – 7:54am……Well, after last night’s meeting of the parliamentary party in Westminster and the overwhelming endorsement of Ed’s leadership some people have been left with egg on their faces this morning. However, if it means that Ed changes course slightly and stops making silly policy pronouncements on-the-hoof then I suppose that this boil-lancing exercise will have been worth it……………
So we are in the “It’s too early to change” stage.. As for ‘egg on faces’, that makes, “It’s too late to change” even more likely..
As for Ed’s ‘off the cuff’ ignoring Conference opinions.. Ah well..
Hopefully we remember the last time a successful Lib Dem leader was prematurely deposed with no plan for who should replace him. Charles Kennedy RIP.
@Mick while I, like many, was horrified at the motion passed at the Green Party Conference, I would like to note that they are still polling higher on average than their 2024 result, can we say the same?
The confidence vote has not necessarily changed my view Ed should put himself to the members, but I will be interested to see what changes; though after 6 years of waiting already, I am doubtful.
I just hope that we won’t find ourselves in much the same place in a Year from now.
Much better from SirEd at PMQs. Topical question getting excellent coverage and sticking the boot in at the same time.
Alex Macfie: Charles Kennedy has become a very troubled man by the time he was deposed as party leader. Had he recognised earlier that his alcoholism had become an insuperable problem it would have been better for himself and for the party.
The result was the party rushing to replace Kennedy with Ming Campbell as leader, a fine man but past his prime. Six months later we had a real contest, won by Nick Clegg who enabled the party to restore its fortunes, even if later he led it to disaster.
Paul Barker: A leopard cannot change its spots.
Thank you, Rose Runswick, for alerting me in the comment above to the Compass organisation and Dr Savage’s paper. For me, this provides the bit of the jigsaw that’s been missing since Summer 2024.
@ Graham Evans. It wasn’t all sweetness and light towards the end of Mr Kennedy’s leadership, Graham.
Al Pinkerton, the party’s Europe spokesman, told the BBC there had been a frank exchange of views during the meeting, but Sir Ed’s willingness to make changes had been “very well received.”
Good. What worries me however is that the changes MPs want are not necessarily all that the party needs. By definition, our MPs represent held seats. We are consolidating well in held seats. It’s the party outside the held seats that is hurting.
@Peter Davies, a real question, not a criticism, how do you know we are consolidating well in all 72 held seats?
I can think of several PPCs who are working their socks off, partly because they are knocking doors tirelessly in a way not all MPs have the time (or inclination?) to do.
Might an associated root problem be a continuing/continuous lack of attention attracting/demanding “headline” policies which would benefit all of our society?
P. S. 1) About 1 in 6 of our children live in food insecure households
2) The legally mandated cap on bankers’ bonuses was abolished in 2023
3) Wages and salaries are taxed more than “unearned” income (All A I sources)
@Ruth. In the local elections we achieved a record number of seats. analysis showed that in areas where we do not have an MP, we lost both votes and councillors. That means we did pretty well in held seats in a difficult set of elections. MRP polls are currently showing us losing perhaps 5-10 seats which is less than you would expect on a significantly lower share in the polls than the general election. 65 seats on 8% is a possible outcome which would see us overrepresented significantly under fptp.
Thanks Peter!
Whatever happens in the General Election of 27/28 or 29 I am sure it won’t be as traumatic as 2015. I remember my Mum and brother and I gathered around our crystal radio set after knocking up, listening to the home service and hearing the exit poll predicting ELEVEN seats.
“Surely it can’t be THAT bad” we cheerily cried in unison!!
@Peter Davies: we not only did very well in held seats but also in the lion’s share of our top target seats. This is encouraging and shows the Party has its act together organisationally in critical areas.
Where we went backwards was in low priority seats at a national level. We were hurt by Greens and Reform squeezing us out of national media coverage.
Really there is no change.
Also what about where we are in cohorts with the Greens, should that not be ended forthwith, eg Lambeth
That’s a decision for Lambeth Lib Dems.
I am not sure where Theakes gets his information but Lambeth Lib Dems are not in cahorts ( or cahoots) with the Greens. We are not in coalition with the Greens and we have no confidence and supply arrangement. We did enable them to form an administration as they had the most Councillors, but otherwise we vote on a case by case basis. One of the reasons we did not have any arrangement with the Greens was because of the antisemitic statements of some of their candidates and a concern about the views of some of their Councillors. Just yesterday evening at Council the Greens withdrew their motion on Gaza and Palestine because we had made it clear that we would not allow their motion to go through unamended.
Lambeth (South London News) May 23, 2026 – The Green Party and the Liberal Democrats have formed a historic political alliance to fundamentally restructure the governance of Lambeth Borough Council, confirming they will vote together on 1 June 2026 to dissolve the current executive cabinet system. The agreement, announced by the leadership of both parties following intense post-election negotiations, establishes that the Liberal Democrats will support Green Party Councillor Martin Abrams for Leader of the Council. This cross-party pact is entirely conditional on the successful passage of a single resolution during the upcoming Extraordinary Meeting of the Council, which seeks to return the local authority to a committee system and dismantle nearly thirty years of concentrated executive rule.
Looking out from my office window at an exceptionally glorious sunset of rich reds, while reading the first half of Ros Savage’s splendid Compass paper (many thanks, Rose, for the reference!) I am enthralled. If Ros would like to stand for Leader, I could support her!
Theakes, nowhere does that article say there was a coalition or a confidence and supply agreement so there is no agreement for us ‘to pull out of forthwith’. As I said in my original comment we did enable a Green leadership of the Council as they had the most councillors of any party. As it happens the Greens pulled back from their manifesto commitment of support of a return to the Committee system so we are still in the undemocratic Cabinet system.
” 65 seats on 8% is a possible outcome which would see us overrepresented significantly under fptp.”
That may be possible. The actual electoral arithmetic gets ever less probable the lower the vote share and depends on a *very* favourable split in the right vote of Tory/Reform/Restore. Of course that could happen but it is totally outside of the party’s control.
Remember it isn’t that long ago that 12% resulted in 12 seats, not 72. And a bit further back when the notion that Lib Dem incumbency was a silver bullet against electoral cataclysm (a notion now starting to do the rounds again) was tested to destruction.
‘A lower vote share is OK if it remains concentrated in target seats’ is a fine strategy. Right up till the moment it isn’t!
@Ruth “Surely it can’t be THAT bad”. I had a conversation that night that went “have you seen the exit poll? It’s eleven”, “11% is pretty good”. “Oh….. that isn’t the percentage….”
Well said Chris Nicholson. What an encouraging post and for recognising that party’s blatant anti semitism.
Hywel – bless!!
@Graham Evans: The party wasn’t in any electoral difficulties when CK was deposed. We were still winning elections; we even won a Parliamentary by-election during an interregnum in 2007. So it wasn’t a case of Miriam’s husband helping restore the party’s fortunes. If anything the party was coasting in the lead-up to the 2010 election, and we were only saved from a worse result by the “Cleggmania” bounce (which unfortunately also distracted the party from its targeting strategy).
@ Alex Macfie ” The party wasn’t in any electoral difficulties when CK was deposed.”
It certainly would have been if CK had been allowed to continue. Do you remember when Andrew Neil asked Jo Swinson the ‘finger on the button’ question ? Imagine that and the follow up with CK.
Deep analysis of polls and MRP seat projections (never 100% accurate as they interpolate voting shifts among national voter tribes and don’t (can’t) account for local factors) is only relevant if there is likely to be a general election soon. Tories and Яeform (and their media allies like the Daily Express) are pushing for one because they fancy their chances. For Andy Burnham to call one now would be “brave” in the Sir-Humphrey sense, which is why it is highly unlikely.
What Ed needs to do next is look at Kemi Badenoch’s tactics – when she offers inheritance tax cuts she is saying who she is for i.e. the well off. So for example a Lib Dem package of higher taxes on polluting companies, lower taxes for people on lower incomes and talking more about education would send a message of who the party is for.
Thank you to everyone who is still replying to this, I’m glad I could inspire some debate!
@Alex while I’m tempted to agree Burnham isn’t going to call a General Election this year, he is certainly motioning that he wants to do it soon, his speech included a lot of allusions to the “next manifesto” and he is certainly looking to fast-track some legislation that would affect elections, which is all suggesting to me he’s hoping to call one as soon as he gets a strong lead.
Some Polling (More in common) on who Voters have heard from recently, We come bottom, well behind Restore – a “Party” that barely exists.
I think Sir Humphrey would describe calling an election now “courageous” rather than “brave”. But the advantage from Andy Burnham’s point of view is to become free from the 2024 manifesto commitments, which would leave him free to argue for EU membership or the Single Market/Custom’s Union. One reason this would be “courageous” is that he stated during the Makerfield by=election campaign that he would not re-open the EU
question only to go back on this shortly after becoming PM. Which puts him at risk of a Jo Swinson moment in a Leave voting seat.
The Guardian have been slow to comment on Davey’s leadership survival – But that may have enabled them to get a better perspective:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/oct/18/lib-dem-opposition-ed-davey-leadership-challenge-fails-to-materialise
To paraphrase:
Maynard’s challenge misfired – But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of discontent.
The key issue is Davey’s big shift to the Right – making the Lib Dems a low tax party, and pitching for the pensioner vote by defending the (unaffordable?) retention of the triple lock.
Davey survives because “A lot of people are terrified of a Daisy leadership – it’s the main reason why Ed is still in place.” Opponents of Davey’s shift to the Right fear that Cooper would only accelerate and entrench that shift.
“For now, it seems, the party will … try to remain sufficiently benign and unobjectionable to hoover up enough tactical votes to gain more MPs, and then perhaps support a Labour government on the condition it introduces … a proportional election system. ‘That’s the big plan – win the seats to deliver PR and then we can be liberals.’ ”
Oh, really? Kid the pink Tories that you share their views, then rat on them and put Burnham in? Is that truly the plan? Or, might it be the centre-left Lib Dem lobby who are being kidded along – and that if given the chance, it is Badenoch who Davey will choose to put in?
@ David Allen “The Guardian have been slow to comment on Davey’s leadership survival”.
It’s never over until the Fat Lady sings, David.
The problem with leaving it to The MPs is that, by definition they lead the successful part of the Party, the Local Ghettos where We mean something. Things look very different outside, in the wider world where we are almost invisible.
Once we get Fairer Votes we will need to have something to say & some people who can say it.
Paul Barker: you are right, Paul, in the wider world we do seem largely invisible. That was for instance clear in today’s Laura Kuennsberg show when, you could summarise, it looks as if both Reform and the Greens are sinking, while Labour and the Conservatives are rising – and no mention of the Liberal Democrats.
Maybe we can safely ease our way in, as the moderate, sensible but caring party. But I would much prefer it, that it is now “we need something to say and some people who can say it”. Fortunately we do have things to say and just need to say them loudly. And ‘people who can say it’ definitely includes Ros Savage, MP. Thanks for caring about Social Liberalism, Ros, as one of the things we should surely assert.
@Andrew Tampion: At the end of the day, manifesto commitments have no standing. An election manifesto is a prospectus not a binding contract. So personal mandates are ultimately meaningless. To call an election in the hope of getting a personal “mandate” is just vanity, especially when sitting on a massive Parliamentary majority. Whatever the exact term Sir Humphrey would use, more plain-speaking folk would probably call it “stupid”.