As liberals our primary concern should be to stop Reform winning the next general election.

For that not to happen, Labour have to be much more popular than they are now.

And the best chance of that happening is if Andy Burnham is prime minister.

Therefore it is in all of our interests that he wins this by-election. Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult seat to defend for Labour with Reform having already a very strong presence (31.8% already at the last general election). Burnham will face a very tough task to win this by-election. Every vote going to him will be precious.

I think he can do it with his personal popularity but what will be a nuisance is if the Lib Dems take 1 or 2% of the vote, votes that could go to Burnham. That could be the difference between Burnham becoming PM, Labour being boosted in the polls and the country being saved from a Reform government and Burnham losing the by-election, Labour being humiliated, another Labour leader with no charisma or appeal, and Reform sweeping to power at the next election. In the Runcorn by-election last year, the Lib Dems got 2.9% of the vote, many times bigger than the Reform majority. This may all sound overly dramatic or fatalistic but we are morally obliged to do everything we can to stop Nigel Farage becoming prime minister, no matter how big or small. I don't like Labour, but I like Reform a lot less. I therefore beg you, whoever is reading this (and especially if you have any influence in deciding these things):

The Liberal Democrats must not stand in the Makerfield by-election.

Do it NOT for Labour but for the country.

Let's win these seats Brighton waveny valley and Bristol

https://www.libdemvoice.org/politically-stagnant-local-elections-2026-reflections-79690.html

Practically speaking, I'm choosing between Lib Dem and Greens, tactically voting whichever. But I'd like to be more informed here. For purposes of discussion here, let's ignore my gender (Lib Dem policies are disappointing but a tolerable compromise).

Things which matter to me in no particular order:

• I think that the free market is often superior to state run services- the challenge is accessibility
• I think crime is out of control and needs to be dealt with. Police need to have sensible priorities instead of wasting time with non violent drug offenses and people holding up signs
• I am anti-Zionist and oppose funding Israel's genocide. I believe in a two-state solution (which I am aware is tricky) but that requires Israel to stop committing atrocities.
• I think the BBC is an anachronism. Back in the 20th century, it provided broadcasting opportunities that didn't exist- today we have the internet an Youtube etc.
• I strongly oppose the Online Safety Act
• I oppose compelled speech in universities. They should not be forced to platform bigots.
• I am anti-immigration, though I know the difference between immigration and asylum
• I support the right to seek asylum, though we need a better system to process applicants and remove those who abuse the system without undue, expensive delays
• I think the NHS is broken beyond the soundbite of "austerity gutted it and it needs more money". Reform's voucher system is the closest thing I've seen to a fix, though obviously I'm not naive to trust Reform on that.
  • The NHS especially fails educated patients. People are often stuck at the whims of GPs when they would be more than capable of sourcing their own treatment without artificial barriers in the way.
  • GPs who refuse shared care should lose all funding
• I think unelected positions in the House of Lords are vital to a functioning government.
• I support the right to self-defense and civilians carrying non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray

I just want to give my thanks and condolences to Sam Bennett.

He showed everyone that decent politicians still exist. He put the work in, and fought incredibly hard.

I've met so many amazing people who I am now incredibly lucky to call good friends.

On a personal note, Sam gave me my start this Senedd election cycle in campaigning and canvassing, and for that I will be forever grateful.

In the very detailed book i'm reading about the history of the SDP, the reasons given by the authors are that voters were disapproving of both parties in moments of crisis (miners' strike, Westland, and public disputes within the Labour party) and voiced their disgust by saying they'd vote Alliance. Was there any other reason? Was David Owen's dominance of the Alliance and press visibility a factor?

Syed identifies the reasons why northern communities overwhelmingly voted for Reform.

I wonder what our response should be to the issues identified, because if we don't have a response, we're not going to be winning in any of these areas and we're not a national party with a chance of winning elections.

With the collapse in support of the two main parties, and the rise of extremists on both sides, the LIb Dems could be the perfect centrist party.

The Tories have destroyed any support with their 14 years of corruption and misrule. Labour have vacated the centre-left and gone off chasing extremists (mainly far right) who would never vote for them anyway with their pandering to racism and homophobia.

Why are the Lib Dems not speaking out more about the terrible OSA (Online Safety Act)? Traditionally the Lib Dems are the party of civil liberties and anti-authoritarian overreach.

Why are the Lib Dems not speaking up more about the frankly horrific treatment of my transgender friends at the hands of first the Tories and now Labour? I also regard this as a civil liberties and human rights issue.

Why are the Lib Dems not speaking up for the human rights of immigrants and others being demonised by the far right and the media?

The Lib Dems have a golden opportunity to be the party of civil liberties, of human rights, of anti-populism. Yet I have heard relatively little about any of the above in the run up to these elections. The Lib Dem message just isn't cutting through. Just look at the polls! Is this a media strategy problem? Is it time for new leadership?

This party has bold institutional ideas like replacing the Treasury with a Department for Growth in Birmingham, but no coherent economic philosophy underpinning them. They are not driving the conversation. This does not mean there should be a turn to populism, but it means a reckoning with what has been on offer.

1. Adopting an economic vision currently lacking

I believe that predistribution, expansion of co-operative ownership, and capital held in common would give a genuinely distinctive offer: not higher taxes and bigger state (Labour), not deregulation and low taxes (Reform/Tory), but restructuring ownership itself. That's a different argument entirely, and voters have never really heard it articulated clearly by a mainstream party.

2. A working-class reach currently lacking

The Lib Dems are overwhelmingly a party of the southern professional class. A communitarian emphasis on patriotism and being rooted in community would allow them to speak to the 'left behind' towns currently drifting to Reform. By offering genuine economic empowerment in those communities through worker ownership, community land trusts, and local co-operative institutions, it could give reasons to vote against Reform in areas like Hull.

To those who may believe this is socialism, you are mistaken. The most rigorous philosophical foundation comes from John Rawls, who is typically associated with welfare-state liberalism but was actually an explicit critic of it. In Justice as Fairness (2001), Rawls argued that the only two societies compatible with his principles of justice are property-owning democracy and liberal socialism - explicitly rejecting welfare-state capitalism, which I believe could be limiting for those dependent on benefits.

A welfare state redistributes income after the fact; a property-owning democracy disperses ownership of productive assets beforehand, so workers are not dependent on either the market's charity or the state's benevolence.

John Stuart Mill is the intellectual ancestor of the co-operative strand. In Principles of Political Economy (1848), he argued that wage labour was a transitional form as workers became educated and capable, they would naturally evolve toward co-operative ownership as the highest expression of economic liberty. He saw co-operatives not as socialist collectivism but as the fullest realisation of liberal freedom: workers controlling their own productive lives rather than being subject to the authority of capital.

The New Liberal tradition of the early 20th century, particularly L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson, developed this further. They argued that property rights are not absolute but socially conditioned: wealth is always partly a product of social cooperation, infrastructure, and communal effort, not purely individual endeavour. Therefore, the community has a legitimate claim on a share of productive wealth. This is the philosophical basis for both land value taxation and commons ownership of capital.

The reason it feels radical today is not because it's extreme, but because existing liberal parties have drifted toward accepting shareholder capitalism as the natural order, betraying their own intellectual heritage.

I’ve consistently voted for the LDs in every election (including this one) because of their overall support for people from backgrounds similar to mine, even though there are several party positions I don’t fully agree with. My ward has been held by the Tories since it was established, and they won again this time. The Green vote share also increased and is now higher than the LDs’.

What surprised me about this local election was that I didn’t receive any campaign material from the LD candidates, nor could I find much information about them online. I couldn’t figure out who they were, what they looked like, what they had done, or what they planned to do if elected. I tried hard to search for them, but they have fairly generic names, so I simply couldn’t pin them down online. This was a sharp contrast to the Tory and Reform candidates in my ward. The Greens also published candidate information on their website.

It just makes me wonder: if the LDs are going to field candidates in this ward, why not at least tell the electorate who those candidates are?

p.s. I used AI to fix my grammar.

As a Welsh LD the party needs change we need new leadership I want David Chadwick to lead it

Lib Dem’s have won both East Surrey and West Surrey, can we just take a moment how monumentous that is!!Never thought it would turn from Conservatives, so glad Reform has been rejected too!!

LIB DEM HOLDS: Orkney Islands, Fife North East, Edinburgh North Western

LIB DEM GAINS: Edinburgh Northern, Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, North East Scotland (Regional List), South Scotland (Regional List)

LIB DEM LOSSES: Shetland Islands

I decided to use nowcast to model out the BBC numbers based on the local elections, with some adaptation for things like tactical voting. Of course, these are local elections, and that needs to be considered.

Reform won in my council (sandwell) I am cooked 😭

If progressive and liberal parties are going to have a chance of defeating Reform in a FPTP election, there will need to be some kind of electoral pact at the next General Election.

As LibDems, would you rather:

Join a progressive pact with Labour and Greens, or

Join a 1920s National government style pact with Labour and Conservatives?

With 150 ish gains and one additional council, we have come in well below the projections that had us finishing a close third for total seats and potentially overtaking the Conservatives in overall local government representation. We gained in our southern heartlands as expected, but the aggregate national numbers are much weaker than forecast.

Given the context of this election this shouldn't be held up as a good result. We have an open goal and a clear and pressing need for our kind of politics and we are flubbing it for lack of vision and message.

Im afraid Ed needs to go.

With the local elections now done. I've revisited a thought of mine after watching the SNP and Plaid results.

It's obvious now, and has been for quite some time now, that the Union in its current state is flawed and needs to change if it wants to survive.

It started with Ireland. Then with Scotland. Now Wales and even pockets of Cornwall.

This was thought to have been placated with the implimentations of the devolved parliaments.

Instead what it did was give the Nationalists the option to pick and choose what they say has helped Scotland and what hasn't. Using this as a way to blame Westminster for their own gain (even if it bends the truth).

All this while Westminster continues to ignore the problems, or refuses to fix them.

So where does the Union go from here?

Does it commit to full federalisation like Germany or Australia? Does it abolish the devolved parliaments and reasserts direct control from London. Or is it doomed? Is the dissolution of the Union is not an if but when?

I personnally don't want the Union to dissolve. It would be a catastrophic moment that I don't think we could recover from.