First off, above is a video on a completely different topic to what this article covers (it’s about woke in relation to Marxism), but I thought I’d put it here just in case anyone was interested.
I agree that the Lib Dems need to be bolder and clearer about who they are. But I disagree that they need to choose to lurch right or left. There is another way, which is to be more open and honest and simpler about who they are. Trouble is that the big challenge for them - and all parties now - is grabbing the most amount of airtime possible to be heard in a 5-way battle. It's easier for the Conservatives and Labour due to the many inherent advantages (friendly media, more MPs etc) they have always had, while the Greens and Reform have the advantage of newness and the media-value of extreme positions. Last night's QT was a good example - most of the programme was about those two, both dealing with their respective poor records, extreme candidates, dodgy leaders etc - but with both being given ample airtime to respond. The LibDems Daisy Cooper was OK I thought, but with very very little airtime versus others. To go back to your original suggestion, where I personally think the LDs could do better is to be bold and open about their wanting to be economically prudent and in favour of open markets and enterprise - you could argue this is "centre right" but I would also argue that their priorities around the environment, inclusiveness, progressive taxation etc are what you might call "centre left." To me they have always included both, but I agree that many activists are to the left economically, hence leaders have often tried to sound more left leaning. Ultimately I think this is about having confidence in who they are, rather than having to choose to move left or right per se.
While I have concerns about some assumptions the leadership is making and the strategy it's pursuing, I think this is probably correct:
"One senior Lib Dem said: “We don’t need to chase the 50% who are already anti-Reform. They will vote tactically regardless of almost anything else. In 2019 we tried to win just with these people and got hammered. It’s easy to boost polling numbers and lose seats.” "
If that is right, then it means the Lib Dems losing votes in a lot of places they're not the main anti-Reform challenger (harming national poll ratings). But if it's right that tactical voting is very strong, then in the areas where the Lib Dems ARE the main anti-Reform party, it does open up space for the Lib Dems to grow the offer by appealing to the centre / centre right. Which is where Sam Freedman's article comes in.
He describes this 'centre' - that he says no one is effectively targeting - by saying: "the centre bloc appears to contain many of the sort of people who used to be the core of the Tory coalition: aspirational working age people who are doing fairly well themselves. The sort of people Tony Blair targeted very effectively in 1997."
He goes on to say: "One might think [the Lib Dems] are well positioned to appeal to this centre group, especially as the Tories keep getting pulled rightwards. Yet their current vote is even more skewed towards the left bloc than Labour’s. Ed Davey’s way of managing this has been to avoid taking contentious stances on major issues, preferring to focus on attacking Trump and Farage. His party’s appeal is currently built around being the left bloc option in much of the south. Ironically, given their long-standing support for PR, it’s a strategy that’s very dependent on a first past the post electoral system. There’s a broader point here. All three of the traditional parties have been strategically paralysed by the difficulty of retaining core bloc support."
Bringing it back to your article and your two suggestions for the Lib Dems, personally I would like to see the party consciously decide to try to create a coalition out of its current left-leaning voters and this centre bloc. I think that can be done not by veering left or right but by being bold and loud about economic growth and creating vibrant communities that depend upon it. So more talking about what might once have been called the third way, policies to boost economic growth, recognising the importance of business but not pretending that all will be fine if we just slash taxes and regulation. It's in this context that I think the Lib Dems could be brave enough to talk about moving much closer to the EU - at least by joining the Single Market as well as the Customs Union.
Should we say we'd join the EU as full members? While there is a lot of support for this now, I still think that people underestimate how much people want to avoid further massive culture war rows, so I rather than headlining with 'we should join the EU' we'd be better off saying 'we need to get the economy going, which means joining the CU and SM'. If the response is 'if the country's going that far, why don't we just join the EU?' the Lib Dem response could be 'well, quite... we'd be in favour of that, but our immediate priority is economic growth, but note that everything we're proposing would be helpful for the country should we wish to rejoin the EU as full members'.
The Lib Dems already have a third option you do not mention. It is the one they have actually been carrying for two centuries. Constitutional reform, written down, with PR and an elected Lords and a federal structure. Whether they would be brave enough to lead with it after May 7th is a different question, and probably the more interesting one. Davey running on Gail's coffee versus Davey running on the most ambitious constitutional platform in modern British politics is a contrast that almost writes its own polling. The activist base is already there. The platform is already there. What is missing is the willingness to make it the headline.
Here in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, I think the Lib Dems are more likely to attract the old style pro European Tory types- the party of MacMillan, McLeod, Chris Patten etc
I agree that the Lib Dems need to be bolder and clearer about who they are. But I disagree that they need to choose to lurch right or left. There is another way, which is to be more open and honest and simpler about who they are. Trouble is that the big challenge for them - and all parties now - is grabbing the most amount of airtime possible to be heard in a 5-way battle. It's easier for the Conservatives and Labour due to the many inherent advantages (friendly media, more MPs etc) they have always had, while the Greens and Reform have the advantage of newness and the media-value of extreme positions. Last night's QT was a good example - most of the programme was about those two, both dealing with their respective poor records, extreme candidates, dodgy leaders etc - but with both being given ample airtime to respond. The LibDems Daisy Cooper was OK I thought, but with very very little airtime versus others. To go back to your original suggestion, where I personally think the LDs could do better is to be bold and open about their wanting to be economically prudent and in favour of open markets and enterprise - you could argue this is "centre right" but I would also argue that their priorities around the environment, inclusiveness, progressive taxation etc are what you might call "centre left." To me they have always included both, but I agree that many activists are to the left economically, hence leaders have often tried to sound more left leaning. Ultimately I think this is about having confidence in who they are, rather than having to choose to move left or right per se.
The party that shamefully shuts down the free speech of gender critical women, and bullies individuals like David Campanale
It's been a long time since the LDs were in any way liberal.
I agree with most of this, but not so much with the conclusion.
Have you seen this on who represents (and crucially, what is meant by) the centre?
https://samf.substack.com/p/wheres-the-centre
While I have concerns about some assumptions the leadership is making and the strategy it's pursuing, I think this is probably correct:
"One senior Lib Dem said: “We don’t need to chase the 50% who are already anti-Reform. They will vote tactically regardless of almost anything else. In 2019 we tried to win just with these people and got hammered. It’s easy to boost polling numbers and lose seats.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/30/could-lib-dems-become-the-biggest-party-in-english-local-government
If that is right, then it means the Lib Dems losing votes in a lot of places they're not the main anti-Reform challenger (harming national poll ratings). But if it's right that tactical voting is very strong, then in the areas where the Lib Dems ARE the main anti-Reform party, it does open up space for the Lib Dems to grow the offer by appealing to the centre / centre right. Which is where Sam Freedman's article comes in.
He describes this 'centre' - that he says no one is effectively targeting - by saying: "the centre bloc appears to contain many of the sort of people who used to be the core of the Tory coalition: aspirational working age people who are doing fairly well themselves. The sort of people Tony Blair targeted very effectively in 1997."
He goes on to say: "One might think [the Lib Dems] are well positioned to appeal to this centre group, especially as the Tories keep getting pulled rightwards. Yet their current vote is even more skewed towards the left bloc than Labour’s. Ed Davey’s way of managing this has been to avoid taking contentious stances on major issues, preferring to focus on attacking Trump and Farage. His party’s appeal is currently built around being the left bloc option in much of the south. Ironically, given their long-standing support for PR, it’s a strategy that’s very dependent on a first past the post electoral system. There’s a broader point here. All three of the traditional parties have been strategically paralysed by the difficulty of retaining core bloc support."
Bringing it back to your article and your two suggestions for the Lib Dems, personally I would like to see the party consciously decide to try to create a coalition out of its current left-leaning voters and this centre bloc. I think that can be done not by veering left or right but by being bold and loud about economic growth and creating vibrant communities that depend upon it. So more talking about what might once have been called the third way, policies to boost economic growth, recognising the importance of business but not pretending that all will be fine if we just slash taxes and regulation. It's in this context that I think the Lib Dems could be brave enough to talk about moving much closer to the EU - at least by joining the Single Market as well as the Customs Union.
Should we say we'd join the EU as full members? While there is a lot of support for this now, I still think that people underestimate how much people want to avoid further massive culture war rows, so I rather than headlining with 'we should join the EU' we'd be better off saying 'we need to get the economy going, which means joining the CU and SM'. If the response is 'if the country's going that far, why don't we just join the EU?' the Lib Dem response could be 'well, quite... we'd be in favour of that, but our immediate priority is economic growth, but note that everything we're proposing would be helpful for the country should we wish to rejoin the EU as full members'.
LDs did seriously poorly at the locals.
Davey still keeping his job?
The Lib Dems already have a third option you do not mention. It is the one they have actually been carrying for two centuries. Constitutional reform, written down, with PR and an elected Lords and a federal structure. Whether they would be brave enough to lead with it after May 7th is a different question, and probably the more interesting one. Davey running on Gail's coffee versus Davey running on the most ambitious constitutional platform in modern British politics is a contrast that almost writes its own polling. The activist base is already there. The platform is already there. What is missing is the willingness to make it the headline.
Here in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, I think the Lib Dems are more likely to attract the old style pro European Tory types- the party of MacMillan, McLeod, Chris Patten etc
Oh, you mean the party that shamefully treated Christian David Campanale?
That party?
Who? Not a name I'm familiar with
Well, the case is in the news right now, so plenty of chances to read about it.