In November party members will be voting to elect our next Party President. At Lib Dem Voice we welcome posts from each of the candidates – one to launch their candidature (like this one) plus a maximum of one per week during the actual campaign.
Should I receive the nominations, I intend to stand for Party President.
A Truly National Party
I am a Northerner, and it matters deeply to me that our party speaks to—and for—the whole of the UK, not just privileged parts of the South. Too many communities have endured decades of chronic underfunding, leaving structural problems that demand structural solutions.
One of the clearest ways we can drive prosperity is through transport. A railway system that is reliable, punctual, and affordable should be the backbone of opportunity across the country. Transport must be a tool for growth and connection—not a barrier.
Protecting Women’s Rights
I have spent years challenging the party’s internal culture, including taking legal action over discrimination. I won my case for sex discrimination, yet the leadership failed to communicate that outcome clearly to members. Meanwhile, some of those responsible for the problems I raised remain in place, with some even seeking promotion.
We face serious governance issues. We have lost our ability to hold ourselves accountable. Justice must not be a privilege reserved for the wealthy. That is why I will push for expanded access to legal aid, ensuring that ordinary people can seek justice without fear of financial ruin.
Protecting Women’s Rights
Women fought hard for the right to vote, to be heard, and to have single-sex spaces. These rights must never be eroded—by our party or by anyone else. The Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue must be respected and implemented by all councils.
I am also deeply concerned that the party has remained silent on the Cass Review. We still have policy dating back to 2015 promoting puberty blockers for children—despite clear evidence that this is not a safe or appropriate stance. Continuing to endorse unevidenced medical treatment is indefensible. Conference has repeatedly failed to update outdated or unscientific policies. That must change.
Leadership and Fresh Perspective
The role of Party President should be about ensuring we practise what we preach: internal challenge, transparency, and accountability. Those who built and maintain the current structures cannot be the ones to deliver the radical change we need.
Our party has stagnated, in part because power has remained concentrated in the same hands for too long. Only a fresh perspective can break that cycle.
Giving a Voice to the Voiceless
Working-class communities across the country are ignored, patronised, and left behind by politics. This is fuelling a crisis of representation and risks driving unrest. We must act before it is too late.
As someone living with a chronic illness, I also know the failings of our support systems. People are expected to work, yet given little real support to do so. Instead, they are forced through degrading processes at the very moments when they need dignity and care.
I have been told I should not run for Party President because of my illness. That is precisely why I must. Our party should lead by example—showing that people with long-term conditions can not only participate but thrive. We must work with businesses to create workplaces that harness the talents of disabled people instead of writing them off.
A Party That Lives Its Values
If we are to be credible, we must live up to the standards we promote. That means applying the Equality Act correctly, providing training across all levels of the party, and establishing fair processes for escalation and conflict resolution.
We also need a more democratic conference. It must not be dominated by the leadership or executive teams. All conferences should be hybrid, with members able to participate fully via Zoom. An “Open Mic” session should be a permanent feature—ensuring grassroots voices are heard, not sidelined.
Our activists, many of them older, are the lifeblood of our party. They deserve respect, support, and care. For many, the party is a vital part of their lives, and we must never take that commitment for granted.
Rebuilding Our National Identity
Winning 72 MPs is a success, but it is not enough. Reform UK is on the rise, and our lack of a distinctive Liberal Democrat identity risks leaving us irrelevant on the national stage.
We must rediscover what it means to be liberal—and why liberal values matter. My own legal case against the party arose because individuals acted in ways entirely at odds with liberalism, misusing systems to pursue personal vendettas. That cannot continue.
Resources are finite. When disagreements arise, members must be able to disagree well. Where this is not possible, proper processes must ensure fairness, integrity, and justice.
Conclusion
Our party needs radical change, both in its culture and in its vision for the country. We must live our values, amplify grassroots voices, and provide genuine national leadership.
That is why I am standing for Party President.
* Natalie was stopped from standing as a candidate in the 2019 due to wearing a t-shirt stating ‘adult human female l’ to an internal party meeting. After receiving an excessive punishment and being unable to stand as candidate in either internal or external party elections for 10 years, After a lengthy battle Natalie took the party to court where the party admitted full liability in her sex discrimination claim.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
Alison Howarth
18 Comments
I welcome your decision to stand for election, undeterred by all you have faced in the last several years. We need courageous woman in positions of power and influence within our party – you have courage in abundance.
Your statement seems heavy on your legal case against the Party and your views on trans rights (or lack thereof). While I’m conscious that I’d have been unlikely to support you in any case, based on what I’ve read, this heavy skew in your statement doesn’t strike me as a particularly rounded way to canvass support within the party.
I am glad, however, that you have chosen to stand for two reasons: first, as health issues shouldn’t be a bar to standing and, second, as you making your case / gender issues a key part of your campaign will provide a good opportunity to ascertain how widely your views are really held within the party.
Delighted to see this Natalie. With all respect to the current leadership and MPs, we are a very male-heavy party, something which leaves us exposed to criticism as well as lacking in balance.
Holding the line on women’s rights is the liberal issue of this generation and I would love to see a Lib Dem President fight for that cause. Wishing you the very best in your campaign.
I welcome Natalie’s decision to stand; I am also glad to see support in the comments section. Whether she succeeds or not the contest will be better for her candidature
@Martin
I couldn’t agree more. We now have three candidates, one from the north, one from the home counties and one from the deep south all with different visions. I look forward to a lively debate!
I am interested where Lib Dems stand on the big issues of the day. Are they left of centre or centre? Do they see themselves as left of Labour or left of Conservatives? Do they support law and order and dealing with the increasing crime levels? Do they believe in open borders or controlling illegal migration.? Also can anyone tell me what Labour stands for now other than the old tatty labourism tag?
I’m confused is this a run for Part President or for Leader/Parliamentary Candidate/FPC member/FCC member? The Party President role is very explicity not a policy one, but this article is full of policy (transport, legal aid, puberty blockers ext.) which the President doesn’t have any responsibility over and their only influence is in having the right to attend FPC meetings – but it would be deeply wrong for the President to start trying to dictate policy or wanting to reverse the democratic decisions of conference like is suggested in this article.
It also isn’t the job of President to start dicatating how Conference is run, thats the job of FPC. Though its worth mentioning that conference *is* hybid and has been for many years. While those online can’t speak, thats entirely fair because of the quanity and delay issues it would cause during policy debates.
Overall this article just has such an unbelivable and unhelpful pessimism about the party. Are things perfect? No of course not they never will be, but the party has been well run for many years now. The proof is in the amazing electoral victory last year and massive spread of fantatic local government wins we have had in the last few years. When it comes down to it thats the thing that really matters.
What experience do you have on a board of an organisation and making decisions for the strategy of a multimillion turnover organisation?
The past few presidents (Pack, Brinton and Farron) have all had experience in senior roles before assuming the presidency. Similarly Prue has chaired organisations such as ALDC very competently and Josh set up a highly successful start up.
This seems to be a very confused piece without a coherent approach to the role. Mark Pack was clearly a President with significant expertise in campaigning and an impressive understanding of how to use the role to get LibDems elected, and my ideal President would continue that approach.
What does Ms Bird offer here? A confused mish-mash of policy ideas along with what appears to be a desire for civil war – it seems she mainly wants to use the President’s position to fight other LibDems rather than Reform and other parties.
@Ali Howarth. 44% of our MPs are women, including the deputy Leader and several key front bench spokespeople. Not sure how that is male dominated.
Peter Andrews – do you think the number of female MPs is the only measure that should be used to tell us about whether the party is male dominated in terms of those holding positions of power? Do you think other measures may be important? For example the balance of M:F chairs of federal committees, local party chairs, council leaders, councillors, members elected to state and federal committees. A more holistic look at the positions of power in the Party will reveal a different picture to cherry picking one statistic.
I agree with Anon Liberal that President’s role is not primarily about policies, so Natalie is badly skewing her message there. However, it is about internal matters and there have been some cases of people who do not conform to party views being hounded by others and not getting support in a party which is supposed to value nonconformity. Sometimes too I feel that FPC and FCC are not allowing enough new voices to be heard; they are too set in their ways and so that is also an issue for the President.
For the latter reasons It is good that Natalie is making her voice heard but I have doubts as to whether she would make a good President. One of the key roles for the President is to encourage members in wide-ranging debate and campaigning efforts, meeting the leaders of our internal associations (who often feel neglected) and local party officers; that is also something still lacking at the moment, though Sal Brinton was the best at that.
I agree with Zoe, we need to look wider than the percentage of MPs. We also need to look at social class, this party of ours constantly assumes that activists have disposable income to attend conference, run for office etc. Until we address those issues we will remain stuck in our minority party middle class bubble!
Good for you Natalie. You’ve been treated very unfairly by our party for several years. You’d be like a breath of fresh air as president – I hope you do well.
Thank you for deciding to stand in the election for Party President. I do not agree that your statement has an unbelievable and unhelpful pessimism about the party. I find your comments very compelling and strongly feel that our existing leadership needs to look beyond the south east and seek to engage more with members across the whole country.
I am glad Natalie speaks about policy. If she has a strong understanding of the policy issues she will be able to relate to the concerns of ordinary members and make sure that they are heard by the leadership. In other words, she needs to assist in policy formation from the bottom-up, rather than working (as a ‘machine politician’) to enforce party policy from the top down.
I would however like to know Natalie’s views on foreign policy, at a time when Ed Davie is refusing dinner with Donald Trump – a man who is enabling the Israelis to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. What does she think about the way the Labour Government has been handling this – particularly its continued diplomatic, military, intelligence and training support for Israel? I would also like to know her views on the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, and the criminalisation of thousands of British people who dare show support for it.
I am somewhat puzzled by the focus on policy stances, given that this has not traditionally been the role of the Presidency. It’s why the President chairs Federal Board, which manages the Party organisationally, and the Leader chairs Federal Policy Committee, which leads on policy development. Each sits on the other, but the division of responsibility is clear.
If the President is to attempt to blur the distinctions between the two roles, you have a recipe for conflict and, in such a conflict, there’s only ever going to be one winner – and it isn’t the Party President.
So, perhaps we ought to focus on the ability to lead teams, to negotiate between competing interests and to act as a voice of the membership when the big decisions are being taken.
This manifesto is rather light on these issues, and given Natalie’s historic differences with many of the people who will continue to be in senior positions within the Party, the question of establishing mutual respect will be one that she needs to answer more coherently than she does here.
Thanks for the responses.
I believe the President needs to a voice for the Grassroots membership and to effectively challenge the leadership team.
It was my challenge on policy that hadn’t been scrutinised well enough that lead to my legal case being necessary in the first place and a number of people still appear unhappy that I won my case.
With regard to the US and the conflicts in Gaza, I believe we are in a place where the relationships we thought were stable are now in need of review and the world in in a state of flux.
It’s vital the UK finds in place on the global stage again with a strong voice.
America is in decline and is targeting immigrants but this won’t make the US great again.
Israel seem to be acting from a place of trauma and the global stage seems unable to hold them to account now for their actions.
A two state solution is urgently needed but could take decades to be reality. Historically our allegiance have always been with the US and Israel, we need to think about whether those allegiances are serving us well now and think about who out allies should be.
The UK is starting to slip into decline and it’s vital we tackle that, however growth can’t come at the expense of the wellbeing of the uk citizens.