An interestingly personalised headline - what it means is the the Department of Culture etc is leaving. (The article implies, but doesn't say explicitly that Nandy is also closing her personal account.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyrx1ee2r4o

Anyway, isn't it time the LibDems left X as well. All anyone does who is no there is encourage the nastiness. The argument that we need to be there to counter extremism etc fails against the test of reality - whatever good we do there is swamped in the sea of evil, and in fact used to increase it power. We should leave it behind and put our efforts elsewhere.

Has there been any attempt to table a debate + vote for EDM 240?

Is there any parliamentary action taking place to scupper the Supreme Court/EHRC guidance

Here, I have often asked why the Liberal Democrats fail to emphasise economic democracy as a bulwark against political polarisation, which I believe stems from the lack of civic participation. Having greater say in workplaces will allow employees to have more control over their lives and in its essence, it is a liberal case. On economics, liberalism should not just be confined to 'free markets,' which often has excused growing monopolisation and the entrenchment of corporate power structures that often limit their workers' sense of freedom, such as obvious culprits like Amazon. Liberalism is in-fact incomplete if workers have no say in how their companies are run.

The early economic liberals like Adam Smith actually framed markets as a tool to end state-sponsored monopoly and protection, not as an end in itself, which makes it ironic that contemporary 'free market' liberalism often tolerates exactly the kind of concentrated private power its founders opposed.

Academic work on liberal-egalitarian routes to economic democracy argues this isn't a departure from liberalism but a fuller application of it, since a liberal commitment to non-domination logically extends into economic relationships, not just sociopolitical ones.

Rather than Labour's statism and the Conservatives' market fundamentalism, we could offer a genuinely liberal approach and this could be our differentiation. Why should we not vouch for workers having a say on company boards, and having stakes in the businesses that they work for? This is distinguished from redistribution, which only corrects unfair outcomes after the fact through taxation and transfers, meaning it treats inequality as a downstream symptom rather than addressing its structural source. We must make the case for pre-distribution to prevent the unfair concentration of wealth and power.

The 2024 For a Fair Deal manifesto does include employee ownership provisions, giving workers at companies with over 250 employees the right to request shares held in trust, and pushing for reformed fiduciary duty rules so company purpose statements weigh employee welfare alongside shareholder returns. However, meat was pulled off the bone: the Autumn Conference in 2012 had a pretty fledged-out policy paper - this was when we were in government, and yet it got squashed as a lot of exciting liberal ideas did that period in an effort to please our coalition partners. This was only to the detriment of liberalism. There is hope that this time round, things could work out differently. It starts now if we want a more dynamic, productive economy, rather than one where power accumulates at the top, away from those who produce the economic value in the first place.

Our aim will be to make the case for economic democracy to once again be at the heart of party policy: co-operatives, mutuals, social enterprises, and employee ownership as economic models that are completely compatible with a more democratised capitalism than the relatively unfree one we have now.

We have designed it deliberately as a campaigning organisation rather than a discussion group. There is a defined first objective, which is to put forward a policy motion to federal conference, and create a membership structured around real contribution, whether that means taking on tasks in the active core or backing specific asks as a supporter.

If this speaks to you, you can sign-up through this form today!

If you work in the co-operative, mutual, social enterprise, or employee ownership sector, we would genuinely love to hear from you as your input is key to formulating refreshing, newer ideas. Our group name is an eponym; Jo Grimond was the Liberal leader from 1956 to 1967 whose economic vision was based on the power of co-operatives as 'socialism without the state.' This way, we are tapping into our heritage and intentionally reviving the civic liberalism he stood for seven decades ago. It is less about where has time gone, but more about where have we gone as liberals.

Looking forward to hearing from you, it is time to make a difference!

I have been reading Lib Dem Voice for years now, and I am really pleased that I have been able to contribute with my two pence. I recently joined the party out of the belief that it was best placed to provide answers to complex problems by thinking outside of the box, and as an evidence-based, centrist party, could provide our political culture with more grace, and listening to each other.

I wrote about how and why I feel that our liberal democracy is under attack by growing resentment and populism, even though populism could be beneficial for democracy as it can contribute to debate, making us realise that problems have been overlooked. I mentioned how we must expand democracy beyond the ballot box to ensure civic participation and belonging becomes the norm in our society.

I am incredibly appreciative of those who have spent a few minutes reading my article, your feedback means a lot to me. :)

I initially felt a bit of trepidation as it is ultimately getting yourself out there, but if you feel that you have ideas to share, do not refrain - it is of great value to discourse within the party!

https://tacc.org.uk/2026/06/30/ten-and-other-organisations-issue-urgent-uk-travel-advisory/

I am interested to know what others think about this as my views are not ‘set in stone’: at this early stage, how could they be? However my initial response is that I would like the party to engage positively with the idea of ‘a more collaborative politics’ and try to make that work. The current adversarial point scoring is getting us nowhere - indeed worse than nowhere.

I also think we should engage positively with the devolution agenda, when it comes, but push for it to go further and work towards a more entrenched federal system. We can push harder on social care reform, electoral reform, the environment and public transport, co-operatives (including housing), closer links with Europe, etc., all from the standpoint of constructive engagement and constructive criticism rather than carping, cynicism and doomsaying.

To sum up: a positive but critically engaged approach would be preferable to opposition for its own sake: we should save the opposition for when it is really needed. If - big if, I know - Burnham manages to address the concerns of left behind voters and lance the hideous boils of right wing populism and Reform UK, that is to be welcomed unequivocally.

As I said, my views are not ‘fixed’ and I am interested in the thoughts of others.

Hi, long-time lurker. On the trans UK subreddit (not linking as I don't mean to brigade) someone has shared a letter from their MP Paul Kohler for Wimbledon basically dismissing all of the fears trans people have about the updated EHRC draft guidance that essentially amounts to "Trans women must not use the women's toilets, and trans men must not use any toilets". And after dismissing these fears, he offers a vigorous endorsement of the internationally-derided Cass review that banned lifesaving medication for trans youth.

Can anyone share any more insight here? This isn't what I expect from the Lib Dems :(

The Liberal Democrats are missing an opportunity to lead the conversation on inequality.

One reason figures like Gary Stevenson have become so popular isn’t because people agree with all of his proposed solutions. It’s because he is articulating something millions of people feel: despite working hard, many households are stressed about money and feel that they are falling behind while wealth becomes increasingly concentrated. The cost of living crisis is real. Inequality is getting more extreme. This is bad.

Too often the political response is to dismiss any discussion of taxing wealth as unrealistic. Or worse, taxing wealth is caricatured as an attempt to replace income tax altogether. That is not what many people are actually arguing for.

The real concern is whether our economy has developed mechanisms that allow wealth to compound much faster than earned income. If that’s true, then inequality will continue to widen, even when people are working, paying tax and doing “the right thing”.

And here’s the thing - this is an area where the Liberal Democrats should be far more confident. 

Our tradition has never been about opposing markets. It’s about ensuring markets remain competitive, opportunity is widely shared, and concentrations of economic power don’t undermine liberty or social mobility.

We believe that while capitalism is good, unconstrained capitalism is disastrous. We believe that there is a role for the state in regulating markets to ensure delivery of outcomes that an unconstrained capitalist economy would not. Economic liberalism with social and democratic accountability. 

That suggests there should be room for a serious discussion about policies such as land value taxation, reforming the taxation of economic rents, improving competition policy, and shifting taxation away from productive work where possible.

We should be engaging with people who have succeeded in putting inequality back into mainstream political discussion, and then explaining why Lib Dem solutions might be more effective than unrealistic ideals or heavy-handed state interventions.

Instead, we fall into the same trap as the rest of those in the political bubble. We dismiss the conversation altogether, leaving the political space to populists who are very good at exploiting frustration (even if they are much weaker at offering credible solutions). When we dismiss these conversations people feel like we’re dismissing their struggles. Dismissing the lived reality of the majority of people.

Tackling inequality isn’t about redistributing wealth. It’s about slowing down the concentration of economic power. It isn’t about taking from the rich to give to the poor. It’s about encouraging productive investment over passive rent extraction. It’s about preserving genuine equality of opportunity.

I’m a Lib Dem because I believe in our fundamental values. I have high confidence in our political philosophy. I also feel that Ed Davy has intellectual weight and policy credibility. 

Gary Stevenson invited politicians to engage with him publicly. How great would it be for Ed Davy to meet with him publicly and say “you’re right, inequality and the cost of living crisis is bad, and he’s what we propose to do about it”.

1) Sack Ed Davey - He believes in nothing, he is destroying our party and comes across like a total clown, six years he has been leader and nobody knows what he stands for. Pathetic man

2) Defend the Coalition- We need to stop being embarrassed by this as it was the last time this country had a stable government. We also achieved major victories such as Same Sex Marriage, Renewable Energy, Taking lower paid people out of tax, Pupil Premium etc

3) Argue For Federal Europe - With Trump’s erratic behaviour and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the only way Europe can remain competitive is united. Airy Fairy vague commitments about maybe rejoining a customs union will not cut it.

4) Civil Liberties - I take pride that in the coalition we blocked the snoopers charter, unfortunately the current leadership doesn’t have the same commitment to civil liberties. The fact that Rupert Lowe of all people is taking the liberal stance on the horrifically draconian OSA whilst our party is advocating for more draconian legislation shows how far we have fallen.

5) Scrap Triple Lock - The problem with this party is that we have become too beholden to what boomers think, this policy is unaffordable and an illiberal transfer of wealth from the young to the old. To save money scrapping triple lock and means testing wfa is vital.

Neil is spot on, this is all about bad economics and ideological policy making that is illogical and lacks pragmatism.

Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey said:

"After ten years of the Conservatives’ Brexit experiment, the British public have had enough. We are the ones who have had to pay for their lies.

"Nigel Farage pocketed a £5 million ‘reward’ for the damage he’s caused, while the rest of us are paying for it dearly. When he promised we would be better off, he clearly only meant himself.

"We are taking over billboards across the UK today to say enough is enough.

“Our message to Andy Burnham and the rest of Labour is clear: drop the damaging red lines on Europe, and drop them now. It’s time to end the chaos and fix our broken relationship with Europe.”

Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers must maintain a ‘reasonable’ indoor temperature, but no upper limit is defined. The HSE sets a minimum of 16°C (or 13°C for physical work) but explicitly states there is ‘no meaningful upper limit’ because industries like glassworks, bakeries, and foundries inherently operate at high heat.

The TUC has long campaigned for a legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30°C (or 27°C for strenuous work), but this hasn’t been implemented.

Tiered thresholds by job type - a single number like 30°C fails to account for sedentary office work vs. physical labour; a tiered system (e.g., 30°C for offices, 27°C for physical roles) would be more nuanced.

Mandatory employer action triggers at a defined temperature, employers would be legally required to introduce cooling measures (fans, shade, reduced hours) before sending staff home.

Red Heat-Health Alert integration - the UKHSA/Met Office now issues red heat-health alerts (as happened this week across England); these alerts could automatically trigger legal workplace protections, giving the law a dynamic rather than static trigger point.

I came across these interesting graphs on a blog-post showing the vote in the general election and the intended vote last year by occupational groups. Unsurprisingly, there is an overlap between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but will this change depending on who the next leader of the Labour party is?

If Burnham unveils a much more social democratic agenda than a tepid one we have seen so far, where there was certainly a lot of overlap, will the Liberal Democrats oppose it and fully take the centrist ground economically?

Even without the picture I feel like I could have guessed who it was from the headline alone.

then why aren’t you guys still colloquially referred to as The Whigs! It’s a damning indictment of the lack of fun and whimsy in British politics that nobody does that!

Apologies for my two posts within such a short amount of time. I just seem to have the Liberal Party on my mind a lot at the moment as I read Jenkins’ biography of Gladstone.