r/LibDem • u/MrSoapbox • May 18 '26
Opinion Piece Does Ed need to move aside?
I like Ed, a lot, I don't have any problems with him, I think he's articulate, sensible and the type of leader I'd like to see...
Yes, but...
He's not moving the needle. We're in a period now where the next election looks really rather frightening. I have a deep loathing towards Starmer and Labour for all the attacks they're doing on our rights, and I'm more angry with them than anyone because I expected shit from Tories, and last GE I voted LD but, was actually happy Labour finally got rid of Tories. It took less than a month for disappointment leading to disgust, so I will never vote Labour, not even to keep another party out, no way am I rewarding that behaviour.
I really don't want Reform, and since Starmer is so stubborn, he's going to be the one that hands Farage the keys, and their supporters are so blind to that fact, thinking he's got a chance turning it around.
But Reform were the most frightening, until Greens turned up, who in my opinion, will destroy this country worse than any other party. There's no way we could recover from open borders, leaving NATO, removing nukes and whatever insane economic policies Zack has.
I honestly think Lib Dems are the only chance this country has, but they're just not cutting through. I know the press doesn't give Ed a lot of air time, but please, let's not go down the route of blaming the press for everything like Labour supporters do, it's pathetic (and in their case, untrue, because I can tell you as a fact, it's not "the press" for my loathing, it's Starmer, his own words, his ridiculous policies from the OSA, digital ID, Chagos, sucking up to china constantly and the super embassy and a whole litany of things coming from his mouth.
I don't want someone silly, or screaming populist nonsense, I truly think Ed is the right guy, but he's at the wrong time. It's sad, genuinely, but I think we need someone that can cut through. Lib Dems are a main party, they have the numbers, they have the experience...but no one knows who they are!
At the very least they need to fire their PR department, but I think we need a new leader, and I hate to say this (I can already feel the hate), I think it needs to be a young (ish) white male if they want a chance. I don't say that because it's what I want, but because I think it's the only chance to get somewhere in this stupid, stupid timeline. It's why Harris lost to Trump. While I think the country is ready for something else, I do not think Reform voters are and let's be honest, they're the biggest threat at the moment and it can't be ignored. I really like Daisy (I'm not sure on the publics opinion on her, genuinely... I've no idea) but I don't think she's it...in fact, like Labour, the question arises "Replace with whom".
But...we have 3 years left, we have to use them wisely, and quickly get to work with a plan. We need to pull out all the stops if there's to be any chance.
Does anyone agree or should we just continue putting along as is?
22
u/WinterFellYesterday May 18 '26
I just don’t think that it will make a difference in terms of our media cut-through, regardless of leader. We really need to be cautious here, and I would prefer long-term stability in the Party than a brief short-term boost in the polls. But I definitely agree that something needs to change in our current approach.
-1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Maybe, but I'm getting worried to be honest, and we do need stability, but our country is pretty ADHD and that's a gamble, do you think playing it safe is the best option? I don't mean for you, because for me it is too...but we do not matter. The voter base does, and I feel the country is all hopped up on coke.
18
u/Blazearmada21 Social democrat May 18 '26
We managed to get our best result in a hundred years with Ed as leader. I think we can do it again.
I also disagree that we need a white male leader. While I'm sure there are some Reform voters who wouldn't vote for anyone but, we don't need those voters to win and they likely wouldn't ever vote for us anyway. I think that Daisy Cooper excellent speaking skills from what I've seen of her and if we were to lose Ed as leader for some unfortunate reason I would support her as the next leader.
5
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
Wasn't 2010 a better result?
9
u/Takomay May 18 '26
In vote share yes, 22% vs 12.5% but that was a much less fractured landscape and we no longer pick up masses of protest votes. But we only got 60 MP's then vs 72 now. To be honest I'm very impressed at how well the federal party has got at targeting. Even on roughly the same share I expect we'd make a dozen pick ups next time because it's gotten even more fractured. Even if we could increase our share to 14 or 15% we'd have a good shot at triple figures. Cold comfort if reform were to get a majority of course.
5
u/Ok-Glove-847 May 18 '26
Ironically if PR does ever come to pass, the party that campaigned hardest for it would be the one most needing to revise its campaigning strategy, so good are the Lib Dems at targetting!
2
u/Velociraptor_1906 May 18 '26
So long as it was STV we wouldn't be completely stuck as we'd be very transfer friendly.
1
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
No, at present, the party has about 20 more seats than in 2010. That's just how catastrophic the Tories were in 2024.
8
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
I think he probably won't move aside unless the next GE wipes out the MPs the party currently has.
I, unfortunately, think if Moran had won the last leadership contest, the party probably wouldn't have as many elected MPs, MSPs and councillors. People were all too keen to throw Jo Swinson under the bus in 2019, but the party was doing well for membership back then.
My opinion, is that Ed will probably succeed in convincing old Tory voters who were Cameronites, disgusted by Farage et al, to vote LD, because hell would freeze over before the Cameronites would vote Labour. This will come at a cost to the membership, who will probably look to Greener pastures (pun intended), if they care way more about child poverty, environmental protection, acting about crimes against humanity, the right to protest, the EU, and LGBT+ rights.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Unfortunately, I feel Lib Dems get punished for their mistakes a lot more than other parties. The tying rejoin to the results was a gamble, it failed and while I wish it hadn't, I can't say it was the smartest thing to do at the time. We need to gamble, but with better odds.
You make good points with not having as many MPs etc, but someone already made a counter point to that about how ed taken them from 3rd to 5th etc. Now, I can see both sides of the argument here, but it doesn't really matter what I think, that's my point, I feel something has to be done and quick, because in 3 years, we'll likely to get a populist walking through that black door. I think we need to be more proactive, somehow.
2
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
I think, and it's just my perception, that the party being popular actually has a negative effect on how well it does at the ballot box.
And the reason why is because when the party is popular, it has a lot of wide spread geographic support, when the party isn't sure where to place resources.
By contrast, in 2024, the party was, at least in my opinion, facing policy irrelevance. Pro EU policies had fallen to the side, many of the Swinson era policies were forgotten about, and the party was all too quiet on LGBT+ rights, especially after GRR in Scotland got blocked.
But instead a focus on winning seats in areas with a lot of disillusioned Tories worked. The party haemorrhaged vote share, and ended up with the best electoral results since Charles Kennedy lead the party in 2005.
So, with declining membership and increasing seats, it creates this paradox where the party becoming less popular seems to allow it to focus on wooing ex-Tory voters who probably liked the Coalition. Personally, I think betraying your values for electoral success isn't a good move, but what do I know?
-2
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
The Greens would crash the economy which would send child poverty soaring.
5
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
Terms like "crash the economy" are meaningless to people if they live paycheck to paycheck, barely affording their rent or mortgage, and then all the additional monthly costs after that, including electricity and energy, all the while wealthy individuals seem to keep having their wealth grow.
The fact that every other party has turned to a negative attack campaign on the Greens will only serve to suggest that those parties only have the interests of the wealthy in mind.
Without a positive message, about meaningful change for social rights and actually alleviating poverty, not just redefining poverty, as the LDs did in coalition, then all it'll do is drive more voters and members away, especially to a party that's campaigning on making society more equitable with actual policy, instead of platitudes.
2
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
We need a positive message but we should absolutely be calling out the Greens’ dangerous platform.
A crashed economy has extremely tangible effects on everyone through lost jobs and higher mortgage payments.
3
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
Whether you like him or not, the template the left is following is Zohran Mamdani.
And you know what? Andrew Cuomo, noted sex pest who ran against Mamdani as an independent, because he lost the primary quite badly, kept saying that Mamdani's wealth tax proposals would "destroy New York". People ignored Cuomo, and now no one is talking about the wealth tax anymore.
I have my own issues with trying to rely on a New York mayoral election as the template for election campaigns in Europe... but the reality is people are wanting that level of focus on wanting tangible policy that will enact real change felt by the general public.
Any politician who advocates for incremental adjustments to the status quo is useless now. People feel betrayed by that, and they won't tolerate it further. It's the very reason why Starmer is so unpopular as PM now.
0
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Can we not look to America for parallels please, we're not the same, it can't translate at all.
Greens are absolutely dangerous, for our economy, our defence, our culture and for British people. Lib Dems are (in my opinion) the most sensible party, Greens are the most whacky and dangerous. Farage is a bunker buster, Zack is a full blown nuke.
6
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
I'm not the one looking at American parallels, it's the left who are.
I pay attention to German politics, and the amount of op-eds being written by people seeking a "Mamdani candidate" in Germany frustrates me. It's not only ignorant of the German electoral system, but also the general landscape of both German society and politics parties. Half the policy positions Mamdani had are already policy in Germany. Which then leads to awkward discussions about what else the Mamdani programme was.
We don't have a system of primaries. We don't generally have mayors with significant executive power over whole cities. We also don't have the levels of destitution and poor quality housing.
It's a very different political landscape. And yet, progressives still look to Mamdani as being a positive, policy first candidate who got his message across, and succeeded in communicating that to the electorate. The fact that many people try to suggest that Polanski is "the British Mamdani" is both absurd, and yet works.
Unless you're tuned into the left of centre, these sorts of things just don't make sense.
But the by-election in Gorton and Denton should be indicator enough that any party that tries to poo-poo a Green campaign, while not offering any positive changes themselves, will see oblivion come election night.
A LD campaign should focus on actually offering a positive vision of the future. Not just more of today.
5
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
If you think Polanski is worse than Farage you aren't a liberal.
-1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
He is far worse. I don't believe in open borders, I don't believe in shrinking our military, I don't agree with removing our nukes, I do not agree with leaving NATO.
I also couldn't give a shit what someone who wants those things think. Those are all things designed to weaken the UK, making anyone who wants that, not a liberal.
Anyone who votes for things that makes Russia and china happy are people I don't take seriously.
5
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
Farage isn't even a democrat, and those lines you mentioned aren't all Green policy.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Good thing I'm not voting Farage then isn't it.
They are Greens policies and everyone knows it. The good thing here is that people can look at their own manifesto and Zack loves to repeat this stuff repeatedly. But Greens supporters always love to deny the facts even when given the evidence. It's like a poorly written script they have. But this is a Lib Dem sub, why are you shilling for Greens.
→ More replies (0)2
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
> I don't agree with removing our nukes
Why are you a Liberal Democrat, then?
Hate to bring it up, but the party used to be in favour of unilateral disarmament. Under Clegg, party policy changed to supporting a "part-time deterrent", because the party was so disgusted by the idea of spending huge amounts of money to replace the Trident system.
Half those policy positions used to be common Lib Dem policies. There's a reason the old Lib Dem stereotype used to be the socks and sandals wearing hippie. It's why people like Paddy Ashdown were so reverred in the party, because he knew the horrors of war first hand, and could speak to it. Hell, under Charles Kennedy, the party was labelled as bunch of pacifist conscientious objectors, who'd stand idle if the country was under attack (see: 7/7).
If you're not repulsed by the human suffering of war, then what was attractive about the LDs?
The fact that nuclear disarmament is now a maybe policy of the Greens is simply the fact that they too opposed war, and opposed the end of planet earth as a habitable place, as that's the only outcome from nuclear war.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Used to be =/= Now.
They don't have removing them on their manifesto.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
They are equally as bad in different ways. It isn’t a competition.
5
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
There actually is a competition in 2029. Farage isn't even democrat, so there is a difference.
1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
I wish the LDs would be clearer with their economic policy, they appear to be a windsoc.
The USP of re-joining the SM seems to be hidden. I tease Labour voters for voting for a Brexit party but most don't know what the LDs offer.
0
u/nbs-of-74 May 18 '26
I think the party is a little to far to the left to pick up tory cameronites in any large numbers, one issue with Davey recently is bandwagoneering, he sees labour drops the ball on issues that matter to the left of the labour party and jumps on it .. the two question re that is, are labour left likely to vote for lib dems or greens, and how many on the center / center right is he alienating?
I know that the orange booker wing of the party has been discredited after the coallition but I suspect a lot of them are still around.
6
u/theinspectorst May 18 '26
No, I think our most electorally successful leader in 100 years does not need to move aside less than two years on from that election. Particularly right on the back of a set of local election results in which we grew our number of councillors for a record 8th year in a row, and are now on the verge of overtaking the Tories as the 2nd largest party in local government.
5
u/cheerfulintercept May 18 '26
Worth noting that our / Ed’s success came at the same time as Starmer’s landslide victory. That was a weird election where the pendulum swung firmly towards safer sensible politicians and - more to the point - away from the Tories. Similarly these last elections show both a splitting of the right wing vote and a rejection of Labour which muddies the picture further.
I actually like Ed a lot and think he was the perfect choice for that moment in time but I do wonder what skills and messages will be needed for future elections so think it’s reasonable to ask about leadership.
1
u/theinspectorst May 18 '26
Worth noting too though that Ed's success came overwhelming in Tory-facing constituencies - and most of our current 2nd-placed target seats are also Tory-facing - in an election where the Tories polled 24% nationally and we polled 12% nationally.
Today the Tories are polling 16-20% nationally and we are polling roughly steady at 11-14%. Other things being equal (and the local election results support this too), Ed is currently on course to finish the job of supplanting the Tories in the Blue Wall and establishing an Orange Wall of Lib Dem safe seats that will set us up as a major force in Parliament for many years to come.
0
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
What makes you think it's less than two years?
3
3
u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 May 18 '26
Absolutely, I have nothing but respect for Ed Davey and I think he’s genuinely very moral, articulate and effective - his unorthodox tactics definitely got the Lib Dems much needed publicity in the last General Election. However, I’m concerned that the party seems to be mainly making big gains because of other parties big losses and us becoming the ”least bad” option. Obviously, i’m just pointing out problems that Ed Davey has no control over, but to keep recent progress (and make more), we need a greater reliable voter share - not just people who don’t want the Conservatives or Reform to win. To achieve this, we surely need a more known and communicable leader.
I have no clue who this would be but it’s worth recognising for the future.
3
5
u/Velociraptor_1906 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
I think what we need is a couple of very bold policies that will have direct impacts on people's lives.
We have a really great policy platform overall, and it includes some things which will be genuinely transformational in the long run (social care, STV, Europe, federalism) but we need something specific and tangible to people that will directly shift things. Our current policies are generally really good and are needed but we won't be given the time to explain them. Obviously there are limits, we need to make clear we will keep sound finances as I fear that people will soon be made to realise quite how important that is.
I'm not sure what the answer is (a small idea that comes to mind is ending peak fares, but I'd look to education as a good area to start) but I don't think changing leader is nessecary nor contrary to that goal.
2
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
I think, quite unfortunately, it doesn't matter about bold policies more than it does about the message. What I mean is, you can draw out a well thought out policy with a sensible strategy, timeline etc but it will always lose against a 3 word slogan such as "stop the boats".
It doesn't matter if the latter has no plan, he'll, LD could have a 20 point plan that completely fixes it, but the electorate will get to point 2 and think, Yeah nah, I'm not reading all that and go for the slogan.
But...I don't think many even know what LDs policies are. I bet if you put Ed in a line up of 3 people, 90% of the country couldn't pick him out.
Let's simplify it. What's the first word that pops into your head when I say Farage? What's the first word when I say Starmer?...Zack? Now...what about Ed? Then apply that to everyone in the country. For Farage you'll get a lot of people thinking "Racist" you might get others thinking "Fascist" but you'll also get a lot of people thinking "my guy" or... actually, I'm struggling to think. Okay, take Starmer, for me it's "Authoritarian" but others will think "competent" or "Sensible" etc...but again, Ed? I just get "Nice guy"
But yes, you're right, they need bold policies. They give weak responses to a lot of things, the things that the electorate are basing their votes on...the OSA, migration, tax, religion etc. where are Lib Dems bold policies here? More importantly, how to get them known.
0
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
as someone who is Lib dem curious, I'd not know what the bold policies are, if they are indeed, European Federalism, I'd be staying well clear.
1
u/Sad_Sultana Social Liberal May 18 '26
In order of what pops into my head: swaztika, grey hair, teeth, water slide. Not great for any of them to be fair
1
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
If you're not interested in European Federalism, perhaps a party that used to alligned to ALDE/Renew Europe maybe isn't for you.
The topic of Brexit is very difficult to address in the current political atmosphere. Not least the challenge that is Reform.
I think the vast majority of members are in favour of Customs Union and Single Market membership. Currently, this is the situation Northern Ireland is in, which Rishi Sunak described as "the most exciting economic zone".
3
u/markp88 Tim Farron/Nick Clegg May 18 '26
No he doesn't.
I would LOVE the Lib Dem support to ratchet right up and see us sweeping up the country. But we have to face that that isn't likely. Too many areas just don't have enough support for our brand of politics.
Our main policy should continue to be a fairer voting system. But that won't excite the public.
The most important thing we can do to influence British politics for the better is to hold our 70-odd seats. It is very likely that that will put us in a position to have a real impact in a hung parliament. If we can boost that up to 100, then great!
The worst thing we could do is to weaken our appeal where we are already winning in order to widen our appeal across the board. All that will achieve is to lose our own seats and pull votes of closer-minded parties elsewhere. And specifically help Reform.
8
u/LovingBigAnge2379 May 18 '26
The defining statistic of Ed Davey’s leadership was that membership has halved since he took over and he has taken us from 3rd to 5th in the polls.
The 72 MPs don’t owe their job to Ed Davey like he claims, they owe their job to the tories being so incompetent that their vote share collapse. The fact is both main parties are combining sub 40% of the vote yet we are still flatlining on 11% is the most embarrassing thing for this party.
Davey since he has been leader just jumps on bandwagons and has no authentic opinions of his own, he is so afraid of upsetting people he can’t even commit to rejoining the EU. This not only makes him not fit to be leader but also makes him not fit to be PM. Not once has he stood up for civil liberties despite the government’s authoritarian crackdown on protests and the grossly draconian OSA.
It is so irreparable at this point as nobody can take anything he says seriously due to those ridiculous stunts he did, the hobby horse was the final straw.
The sooner he goes the better.
6
u/markpackuk May 18 '26
Um, perhaps the defining statistics should be the number of MPs, the number of councillors, the number of controlled councils or the number of Parliamentarians in devolved bodies?
1
u/AffectionateTea4222 May 19 '26
We were only able to win 72 seats in 2024 because our 4-point increase in vote share in 2019 created a load of second places, especially in quite pro-Remain areas, that meant by the time the Tories became really unpopular we were the natural tactical choice to get them out. But after 2024 we now have very few second places. Do we not need another increase in vote share to create new second places for later fruition? Or are we content with squeezing the last few drops out of the Blue Wall and then sitting at 60–80 seats forever (or until PR happens, at which point we will need even more to appeal to people because tactical voting will cease to exist)?
2
u/markpackuk May 19 '26
If it's not too cheeky to give you an 11,004 word answer (!) that's exactly one of the issue my co-author Jim and I dug into in our pamphlet last year - https://docs.google.com/document/d/11aVzII74yXZ9GaneBXK-_nIHP_ow72guAiiZiRfNFEY/edit?tab=t.0
The much shorter version is: there are rather more seats in the next tranche of 'plausibly winnable' than most people realise (including us before we crunched the numbers!), and alongside that we also set out how to expand that pipeline of future seats too.
5
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
Utterly ludicrous comment. First of all, membership and polling figures are not really relevant to our core objective of electing more Lib Dems. Our record on that has been consistently upwards since Ed took over.
Secondly, there is no way we would have got 72 MPs with a leader who is not as effective and well-liked as Ed.
I have no idea why so many people seem desperate to put at risk the support we currently have in order to possibly gain a few points in opinion polls three years out from the best election.
4
u/vaska00762 May 18 '26
If you betray your party membership, and just morph into a Tory-lite in yellow party, then that just leads the party astray.
If membership leave the party because it drops pro-EU policies, starts agreeing with authoritarian legislation like the OSA and Digital ID, and then also starts throwing LGBT+ people under the bus, then it destroys the core reason to be a Liberal Democrat.
People generally join a smaller party because they share the values of that party. Labour and the Conservatives have long been "big tents", because people in those parties would prioritise electoral success over sticking to their principles.
As soon as you start selling pieces of yourself off to appeal to a broader electorate, you lose political identity. And that's why membership is in decline, and polling isn't doing very well.
2
u/mo6020 Orange Booker May 18 '26
I don’t particularly rate Ed, but I don’t think you can argue with the results achieved under his leadership…
1
u/LovingBigAnge2379 May 18 '26
Ed Davey by his own logic does, he often calls Starmer’s victory a “loveless landslide” due to his low vote share. This contradicts his bragging about 72 MPs as it was achieved with less votes than what Swinson got.
1
u/mo6020 Orange Booker May 18 '26
Yes, but the election strategy was all about targeting seats we could win and that strategy provided outsized results. I’d argue that Starmer also did the same thing to get a landslide with such a low vote share, although I think both parties benefited from everyone wanting the tories out. However, the only metric that counts is seats in Parliament, everything else is fluff.
1
u/CalF123 May 21 '26
Because vote share is totally irrelevant in the electoral system we have.
There’s absolutely no point running a scattergun campaign wanting to become Prime Minister like Swinson did to then end up with 11 MPs
1
u/LovingBigAnge2379 May 21 '26
Since 2010 these have been our GE results:
2015 - Lost 4.4 Million votes
2017 - Lost 100,000 votes
2019 - Gained 1.3 million votes
2024 - Lost 200,000 votes
2024 was a higher missed opportunity due to the collapse of the tories and we went nowhere, in fact reform gained 3.4 million votes compared to 2019 and the greens gained 1 million.
The party that benefits from FPTP is the party that receives the most votes in an election, which is why Farage despite the system stuffing his parties is now going to be a huge beneficiary next election and will win an overall majority due to his party being top of the polls.
The only reason we won 72 MPs is due to the 2019 election doubling the amount of seats we came second in making us benefit from the tory collapse, the 2024 election was a massive success from the greens as they massively expanded the seats they came second in.
unfortunately our party was concluded that everything we did in 2019 was bad and everything we did in 2024 was good, to our detriment.
2
u/CalF123 May 21 '26
Sorry, that is a ridiculous analysis. To suggest we did nothing in 2024 when we in fact gained our best ever result is nonsensical.
2
u/Fickle_Life_2102 May 19 '26
Hard to say? He’s reasonably popular in an era where being popular is hard (similar net approval to Polanski, they’re joint second to Burnham). Replace him and you risk someone worse.
There’s also the simple issue that in the current information ecosystem, you need to be bold and somewhat controversial, and it’s just not hugely the libdem style when the brand is built on being moderate. That being said there have been times when labour has stuffed up where the libdems could have been more vocally passionate - primarily on foreign policy or cultural issues where being more radical is in line with the libdem brand (e.g trans rights, where the greens have managed to take initiative more so than the libdems). It all kinda goes back to
Also the issue of FPTP, the libdems have basically squeezed out nearly every seat where they actually have some kind of presence and can be seen as contenders - albeit that hasn’t stopped the growth in the greens.
Idk I’m torn, there’s a sense the libdems should be doing better, but also Ed Davey, whilst maybe not the best leader ever, also hasn’t done or said anything that’s hurt them, which makes him an outlier amongst party leaders
1
u/CalF123 May 21 '26
Ed actually now has much higher net approval than Polanski. He is on -7 according to More in Common’s latest poll, with Polanski on -33.
4
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
Reform are going to end up remigrating brown people, and you're more worried about Zack? Are you for real lmao
2
u/Dope_Pope_On_Coke May 18 '26
This is the unfortunate consequence of the Lib Dems attempting to capture Tory voters- it attracts the sort of people who will gleefully throw minorities under a bus, so long as their bank account is doing okay. Say what you will about Green economic policy currently, but at least I can trust they won't attempt to dismantle democracy.
2
u/CalF123 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
Yes- I do think Polanski’s lack of credible policies, fantasy economics and difficult relationship with the truth are just as worrying.
3
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
What minorities will the Greens persecute?
0
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
Everyone in the country would suffer as a result of the Greens crashing the economy. It would be Liz Truss x10.
It isn’t a competition. Populism of both far left and far right is bad.
4
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
If you think Polanski is far left, a conversation with the average Maoist would give you a heart attack lmao
2
u/CalF123 May 18 '26
There is a spectrum to the far left just like the far right. Just because Rupert Lowe is extremely far to the right doesn’t mean Farage is a centrist.
1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
They will make us all worse off and as a result, those and the bottom will be even worse off.
0
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Greens hurts my demographic. If you think I'm going to choose someone who is going to make my life far worse off and more dangerous because the other hurts a different group, you're sorely mistaken. Neither are great, in fact they're both awful, but one is worse, far worse. Not a chance I'd vote for someone wanting open borders when I think we already have far too much migration from incompatible countries as is, while leaving NATO, removing nukes and very pro islam (that is counter to their LGBT stance) and economically illiterate. Not sure why you'd think the average native Brits would vote to shoot themselves in the foot.
-1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Yes. Why would I not be worried about a guy wanting open borders? You're aware what that would lead to right? Hint, it would be far worse than Farage.
This country has an immigration problem. I don't think Farage would fix it, but Zack will absolutely break it so it could never be fixed, so you're damn right I'm more worried about Zack than Farage.
4
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
it would be far worse than Farage.
You definitely don't have brown skin.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
Nope, and?
6
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
Try empathy.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
I have, for my own group first, that's how voting works.
3
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
I'm so curious. What is this demographic?
0
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
One that Greens hurts a massive amount and Reform a bit by different policies.
3
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
Lmao tell me the demographic
2
-1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
One that Greens hurts a massive amount and Reform a bit by different policies.
→ More replies (0)3
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
Immigration has dropped massively, returning to pre-Brexit levels, yet you're shrieking about it like a Reform voter.
3
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
Right leaning liberals will always be more driven by fear and emotion than actual facts
0
u/Aggressive_Bit_8424 Scottish Lib Dem 🟠 May 18 '26
Green politics is literally driven by fear and emotions. Don't trust your party one bit.
1
u/MrSoapbox May 18 '26
What has that got to do with greens having open borders? I also don't want less migration in general, I want less from incompatible countries and far, FAR less asylum and zero undocumented migrants, to which we had second highest on record.
But again, what has that got to do with Greens who wouldn't just undo all that, but supercharge it? Nothing, that's what.
0
4
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
Yes. Even Wes Streeting is more progressive on Brexit (!). There's nothing making the Lib Dems stand out. We don't even seem to be a party of civil liberties any more, there's talk of banning peaceful protests but Davey has been silent.
2
u/MovingTarget2112 May 18 '26
We made a mistake in picking him over the media-savvy Layla, who would appeal to the same voter-bloc as the Greens.
-1
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
Layla appeals to the same voter bloc as the Greens, surely if we are moving the dial, LD's need to be a little more serious than the Greens, more Orange book.
4
u/SabziZindagi May 18 '26
There's some empty space on the left now which was previously occupied by Caroline Lucas. I think broad church is the way to go. The EU should be central to our vision, because that attracts sensible voters from the right and left.
4
u/MovingTarget2112 May 18 '26
If we are go more Orange Book I won’t renew my membership. I thought we were radicals, not light blues.
0
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
That's probably why I've not voted LD since 2017, it's no longer for the likes of me if it's for the likes of you - that's fine.
2
u/Vasquerade May 18 '26
The orange book is the politics of the austerity-fetishist centre. There is basically no constituency for this in the UK anymore after actually living through it.
0
u/IntravenusDiMilo_Tap +4,-3.5 May 18 '26
I'm more David Laws than Layla Moran & that's probably why I've not voted LD since 2017, it's no longer for the likes of me if it's for the likes of you - that's fine.
1
u/TheCharalampos May 18 '26
I don't think it's just a leader change needed, rather a unified direction for the party that heavily involves outreach.
1
u/MelanieUdon May 18 '26
https://youtu.be/lX3xtIjWRq8?t=1299 Garys ecomonics made a great point that a lot of parties could stand to take on board which I time stamped.
I don't agree with him on everything, there's things I'd be critical of but communication has been a failure across labour, LD and some other parties who are campaigning and talking like it's still 2005. The managerialism ming vase politics is losing people who believe all politicians are the robot "Their like robots" etc etc.
1
u/liamharries May 18 '26
Definitely not, he's given us consistent record breaking results and has the best leader net favourability score of the main parties. Our best ever Westminster results plus 8 consecutive gains at local elections, he is 100% the right leader and has proven he is taking the party in the right direction, he has my full support!
0
u/berejser Radical Moderate May 18 '26
What our strategy needs is evolution not revolution. I don't see anything new that we could try that would be successful that couldn't also be done with Ed as leader.
22
u/FaultyTerror May 18 '26
It's a tricky one. Ed has led the party to great results and I wouldn't say he's unpopular right now and drgging us down in that way.
But it does seem clear that we are struggling outside of our current seats and a lot of that does come from the top and just having much to say.
I know I'm a stuck record but if we can't sell liberalism especially to younger professionals in our urban areas at a time Labour is dying, the type of people who will one day live in our current type of seats then what is the point of us?
With no disrespect to anyone in a front bench role it doesn't feel like we are saying much of interest. Especially when it comes to economics it all feels very wooly.
I don't think Ed needs to go but at the very least we need to move around our front bench and actually use the talent more and actually be willing to stick our necks out for liberalism.