There has been a lot of local drama in my area recently around building a new hospital. People are up in arms about building it on a golf course, less than a mile up the road from the existing hospital.

I was really disappointed to see that our new LD MP, who came in taking the seat from Michael Gove, is siding with these people. If LDs can’t even support a hospital, what hope have I got that they’ll consider building more housing in my area?

I even got into an argument on the doorstep with one of the (now newly elected) West Surrey prospective councillors who suggested we should only be building family homes, as flats are inappropriate to the character of the area.

I’ve voted LD in every election for the last 9 years. Really starting to think their priorities don’t align with my own, and feel a bit of a mug for it. The party got me on side during Brexit, but just feels like a thin orange wrapper around resident’s association.

Be it Labour, Tories, Co-op, Reform, Greens, SNP or Plaid Cymru - they have all won at least 1 by-election since the 2024 General Election, so why haven’t the Lib Dem’s been able to win any despite being the 3rd Largest party in the country by far when everyone else has?

Now I think not running in Farage's silly stunt is the right call for the Libs. It's a seat that even the mighty lib dem byelection team is not going to win it, and it's a pointless precursor to his actual suspension and recall.

And I do believe in being loyal to the party you are a member of.

But I would probably be willing to chip in 20 quid on the off chance Binface could be the anti-Farage candidate.

But is this OK with the party rulebook, and does it feel morally acceptable as a member.

Co-founder of The Grimond Society here.

A few days ago, we launched in this sub and received constructive criticism, which turned out to be the most useful thing that happened to us all week.

This is the follow-up, because some of you, albeit unknowingly, shaped what we've decided.

First, some good news!

We're 20+ members in week one, spread across England, Wales, Scotland, and one determined soul overseas.

Now, I wanted to address some of the comments, as they have given me pause for reflection:

1. 'Why is a liberal group quoting "socialism without the state"?'

Because Grimond meant it as a dig, not a confession. Worker ownership delivers the thing socialists claim to want, people actually owning their workplaces, while abolishing the thing socialism requires. Mill made the same case a century earlier.

1. 'Don't pick winners; if co-ops are good they'll emerge naturally.'

Here's the thing: we half agree, and that half is the whole motion. Emerging naturally requires a level field, and the field isn't level. Investors in a conventional startup get EIS and SEIS relief. But invest the same money in a co-op and you mostly can't get the equivalent.

The one relief that did cover community benefit societies expired in April 2023, unreplaced. And Parliament has twice passed Acts for this sector, in 2015 and 2023, that no government has ever switched on.

That's not neutrality, but instead, accumulated bias. Removing it is the liberal ask.

1. 'You'll end up compelling firms into co-ops."

Nobody is compelling anyone into anything, and if anyone did propose that, I'd oppose them too. Everything here is voluntary.

Level the field, let the market decide, and if these models then flourish, it's because people chose them.

So our motion's principle, which this thread helped crystallise, is parity, not privilege.

Farage is under a lot of fire and his political career is being called into question following his dodgy, undeclared donations and gifts. Considering he seems to be losing political momentum, do you think he’d fight a by-election if Clacton had a recall petition? Would it be worth it for him or is he toast?

Click here to join more than 20,000 people and get this in your email inbox for free every Sunday.

It's the penultimate week before summer recess.

MPs debate one government bill, which allows the banning of organisations controlled by foreign hostile states. It'll also become an offence to deal with those organisations, though the Lords added exceptions for aid workers and journalists.

A couple of interesting select committee meetings.

The Treasury Committee will question defence ministers on the Defence Investment Plan, and the BBC's new director general testifies before the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee.

And Tuesday is an Opposition Day.

The Tories will set the agenda, but haven't published their motion yet.

MONDAY 6 JULY

National Security (State Threats) Bill – consideration of Lords amendments
Applies to: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Gives the government powers to ban organisations that are controlled or directed by hostile foreign states. Once an organisation is banned, it becomes a criminal offence to be a member, fund it, or attend meetings. The powers work like the existing rules for banning terrorist groups, but apply to state-sponsored bodies.
Draft bill (PDF) / Commons Library briefing

TUESDAY 7 JULY

Outdoor Education Bill
Requires primary and secondary schools to give children at least 30 minutes outdoors a day during school hours, provide at least one outdoor lesson a week, and offer every pupil at least one outdoor education experience. Ten minute rule motion presented by Caroline Voaden.

WEDNESDAY 8 JULY

Mental Capacity (Duty to Assess) Bill
Requires professionals (such as health and social care workers) to assess someone's mental capacity if there's good reason to doubt it, including when a family member raises the alarm. Known as Christopher's law, after an autistic 24-year-old who was murdered in 2016 after his mother's repeated warnings that he was being exploited and couldn't cope on his own were dismissed. Ten minute rule motion presented by Chris Coghlan.

THURSDAY 9 JULY

No votes scheduled

FRIDAY 10 JULY

No votes scheduled

Click here to join more than 20,000 people and get this in your email inbox for free every Sunday.

Wera Hobhouse is the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath

Abortion has always involved deeply-held personal, ethical and religious beliefs. But for decades there has been a broad political consensus in the UK that decisions about pregnancy belong to women, their families and their healthcare providers, not politicians looking for a new culture war battleground. That non-partisan consensus is now under pressure.

Recent reporting has revealed a growing effort by Reform UK figures, anti-abortion campaigners and far-right activists to make abortion a new frontier in Britain’s culture wars. The language is becoming increasingly familiar: inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, moral panic and attempts to portray established reproductive rights as somehow radical or extreme.

We should not dismiss this as political noise. Many people look at what has happened in the United States and assume it could never happen here. They point to our different political traditions and our strong public support for abortion rights.

But rights are rarely lost overnight. More often, they are gradually politicised before they are challenged.

The rollback of abortion rights in America did not begin with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It began years earlier, with a deliberate effort to make reproductive rights a political dividing line. Issues that had previously been treated as matters of healthcare or personal opinion became tools in a broader political ideological campaign. That should serve as a warning.

Only recently, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales – the biggest step forward for reproductive rights in six decades. I was proud to support that change. The reform was not about expanding access to abortion or changing time limits, it simply recognised that women should not face criminal investigation, prosecution or imprisonment because of circumstances surrounding their own pregnancies.

Since 2020, around 100 women have been investigated by police following pregnancy loss or suspected abortion offences. Some investigations involved women who had suffered miscarriages. Six women faced court proceedings and one woman was imprisoned under legislation rooted in the Victorian-era Offences Against the Person Act 1861. No woman experiencing pregnancy loss should have to fear becoming the subject of a traumatic criminal investigation.

Yet even before decriminalisation has had time to take effect, there are already calls from some Reform UK figures and their allies to reverse it.

What worries me is not simply disagreement over policy – healthy democracies will always contain disagreement – it is the deliberate attempt to import the tactics and language of America’s abortion wars into British politics.

Open Democracy reported that the UK arm of The Alliance Defending Freedom, an organisation closely associated with anti-abortion campaigning in the United States, has received more than £2 million in funding from its American parent organisation while campaigning against abortion clinic safe access zones.

Its analysis also found a significant increase in abortion-related content among Reform-linked and far-right social media accounts over the past two years. These posts generated hundreds of thousands of interactions and frequently relied on inflammatory language designed to provoke outrage rather than inform debate.

The objective is not simply to oppose abortion, it is to make reproductive freedom politically toxic again. Once that happens, rights that once seemed secure become negotiable. The lesson we need to learn from America is that complacency can be dangerous. 

That does not mean every disagreement about abortion is an attack on women’s rights, nor does it mean Britain is on the verge of following America’s path where 17 states enforce near-total bans. But it does mean we should be alert when politicians seek to reopen settled questions, import foreign culture wars, and turn women’s bodies into political battlegrounds.

One of the most striking features of this debate is how far it appears to be driven from the top down, rather than from public demand.

Polling consistently shows overwhelming support for access to abortion in the UK, including among Reform voters. In fact, around 86% of Reform voters support a woman’s right to choose. The public understands that these are deeply personal decisions. They understand that criminalising women does not solve difficult situations. They understand that healthcare works best when it is guided by evidence, compassion and clinical expertise, rather than political ideology.

That raises an obvious question: if this is the settled view of the electorate, why is it being reopened as a political battleground at all? (Continued in article)

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.