What does this mean in the context of a wider populist, far-right insurgency. Lib
Dems are fantastic local campaigners and activists, and our MPs are fantastic
‘constituency MPs’, for want of a better label. In September last year it became
apparent that Reform is looking to mirror our success, and too build up local
support across the country.

At the party conference, Ed Davey addressed the challenge posed by Reform and
Nigel Farage’s sycophantic admiration for Trump and Putin, delivering a pointed
rebuke: “This from a man who thinks he can be our Prime Minister? Well, not on our
watch!” Davey also warned that the Conservative Party is increasingly chasing after
Reform’s wave of populist support, which has surged in recent months. He took the
opportunity to criticise Kemi Badenoch’s leadership of the Tories, highlighting her
failure to distance the party from Reform’s influence and the broader populist shift.
Sir Ed is ready to do battle with Reform. So, returning to Mark’s question. Do we
stay the course and hammer down on our local campaigning, or do we shift to a
nationwide assault? In Chris Bryant’s Code of Conduct, I read that he thinks MPs
should avoid what has become a “singular concentration on the local aspects of the
job to the detriment of their national leadership.” In other words, Bryant believes we need statesmanship and national leadership back.

We, the Lib Dems, could do with some of this too. What contributed to our success in 2024 was our local presence. For us, local government is key, and championing areas and regions of the UK has, and will
continue to be, a priority. Sir Ed also acknowledges that Lib Dem MPs spend a lot
more time in their constituencies on average, quipping that this is far more time than
Farage spends in Clacton, but this is a pretty low bar. Nevertheless, as Reform’s
vultures circle in above our lovely local pastures, do we hold the line, or do we go
national? Our locality, combined with our policies on health and social care, brought
us tremendous success last July. Polling from More in Common on why people
voted for the Lib Dems shows that our position on NHS and health issues, as well as
our local candidates, are two of the top three reasons behind people going Liberal.
The other, tactical voting / to stop another party from winning, is nothing to shy
away from as we approach the locals.

If people choose Liberal Democrats just because they don’t want to see Reform (or
the Tories/Labour) win in their local area, then so be it. We are still the party to take
the fight to Reform, regardless of whether you are a flag-waving, card-carrying,
Jennie-loving party member.

The challenge ahead is not just about defending what we’ve built but about leading
with vision and boldness in the face of rising threats. We are the de facto leaders on
the NHS, health, and social care, and this is something we need to take nationally.
Lib Dems are the clear alternative. Our victory in Alperton and Vivary Bridge are
testaments to that. Our success in local elections proves that when we show up,
listen, and deliver, voters put their trust in us. Now, the task is to scale that success,
ensuring that every voter who feels politically homeless or disillusioned knows
exactly where to turn.

Showing people that politics can work for them, that who they vote for can make a difference,
that their voice matters. That is how you defeat the populists, how you drain away the
cynicism that feeds them, how you win back people’s trust and restore their hope.
Ed Davey at Liberal Democrat Conference in Harrogate.

What’s the point of the Lib Dems? A tricky question right enough, Max, especially when presented with so many options. Are we the protectors of our nation’s water, holding companies and CEOs to account and calling for tougher regulation? Are we the champions for a brighter future for our carers and care-users? The voice behind greater national security for the UK?  Or are we the saviours of SEND? Well, we are, can be, and will continue to be, all of that and more. 

In his piece The Liberal Democrats’ quiet crisis of quietness, my esteemed new colleague Max Booth (welcome!) writes that the Liberal Democrats are “If the Liberal Democrats can’t achieve their goals (though their lack of ability to define what those might be is half the problem) with a record number of seats, then they are finished as a party.” The Liberal Democrats’ goals are clearly defined in our Manifesto, and, while as a third party we have precious little control of the parliamentary agenda, I like to think that we are getting on just fine – even if no one is googling us. 

In December last year our very own Sarah Olney MP’s Elections (Proportional Representation) Ten Minute Rule Bill passed its first hurdle. Whilst it may not be found a slot in the parliamentary schedule, this is a tremendous victory for all the voices calling for electoral reform in Westminster – of which the Lib Dems have been one of the loudest. Across the lobby, in the same month, Lord Clement-Jones’ Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill passed out the Lords. This bill calls for a comprehensive regulatory framework for the use of AI in public sector delivery, a cause he championed eloquently at a recent event I attended at King’s College London. MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale Tim Farron has called for the designation of “social housing-only developments” to combat rising house prices, and our Leader Ed Davey has proposed emergency legislation to use seized Russian assets to support Ukraine. These are just a few examples of the way in which our MPs and life peers are working hard for a fair deal for the United Kingdom and our overseas interests – and I haven’t even talked about our recent council election victories – in our most recent, in Alperton, we enjoyed nearly more votes than all the other candidates combined. 

My colleague wields Google Trends like a political crystal ball, but let’s be real—search metrics such as these don’t really say whether the Liberal Democrats are making good on their election promises despite being out of government and frontbench opposition. I admit, the success of a political party is hard to measure or define, and is a question tackled head on in the evaluation of Liberal Leaders in one of my favourite books: British Liberal Leaders. Nevertheless, party membership and politics aside, I’d prefer to go off recent polling and parliamentary business—examples of which I’ve listed—rather than relying on what pops up when you Google us. Alas, I digress…

My colleague goes on to pen:  “Were an alien to land in a Westminster pub and overhear enough conversations they’d believe that Nigel Farage was the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch was leader of a distant, trailing third party (or perhaps they’d think Robert Jenrick was Tory leader) – and they wouldn’t be able to tell you who Ed Davey was if you paid them.”

Now, while I do believe an alien would have trouble understanding more simpler things on this island than our nation’s affairs, I don’t even think they’d even have a chance to begin before Farage would haemorrhage after hearing the word “alien” and seek to deport it. 

I stand by our party’s extraordinary comeback after paying for our mistake over tuition fees during the coalition government, and I stand by them still. Our MPs are hard at work and buzzing with activity in the Commons, and, as I wrote for Lib Dem Voice, I believe our future to be bright. 

After all, if visibility were everything, wouldn’t Nigel Farage be the true leader of the opposition he’s always claimed to be?

Marr writes on the urgent need for US cooperation in securing a lasting peace deal in Ukraine, something he warns “depends wholly on the US president’s mood.” His assessment of the current situation is not wrong. But we cannot allow Europe’s security to hang on the whims and tantrums of a president who fancies himself a king. Even more unsettling is the growing warmth between this king and Putin, which seriously damages the credibility of any peace deal on a table at which Washington is sat at the head. 

Marr paints the international landscape with a more diplomatic brush than I (one that Trump could probably do with borrowing), but do we agree on one crucial point: Britain must arm. Echoing Winston Churchill’s warning, Britain must rearm. The Prime Minister’s recent commitment to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is a step in the right direction, but time is now our most valuable resource. Marr argues that Europe is in no position to face “full-scale military confrontation,” meaning diplomacy must carry the burden of buying us that time. The months ahead demand an urgent yet measured approach: reinforcing alliances and accelerating a rearmament programme akin to the one Britain embarked upon before the Second World War.

This is why, as I wrote recently, I am grateful we in Britain now have an adult at the helm. Starmer’s recent conduct on the international stage has been steady and serious. At PMQs this week, Ed Davey rightly congratulated the Prime Minister for securing the restoration of intelligence and military support for Ukraine. Regardless of how the Trump administration positions itself, Britain must pursue diplomacy over political theatrics if we are to stand any chance of strengthening our defences.

I disagree with Marr’s assertion that the “coalition of the willing” – the offspring of the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House Summit on 2nd March – means little without a peace deal. As President Macron said last week: “the future of Europe cannot be decided in Moscow or Washington.” A minerals deal that could end the Russo-Ukrainian War must, as Jeremy Bowen writes in the New Statesman, “be made with Ukraine as well as Russia” – and cannot entail Trump bending to Putin’s expansionist ambitions with the hope that he can get a slice of Ukraine’s natural resources. During the ambush of Zelensky in the Oval Office, the wartime president reminded Trump and Vance of Russia’s violation of the Minsk agreement – a reminder that we must be prepared for conflict, regardless of whether there is a peace deal to police. Not in the least as Britain already has a duty to stand by Ukraine – and Europe’s collective security – in the Budapest Agreement signed in 1994, an agreement egregiously and directly violated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The coalition of the willing has a much larger (but no more important) brief than standing by Ukraine. Europe must look to Europe; our allies, our collective strength, our capacity-building. It is not enough to wait for a dictator and a president who fancies himself a king to come to terms about how they are to carve up a country’s natural resources – which, by the way, won’t deliver a profit to the White House until long after Trump has left office. 

The series of meetings that took place in the Oval Office this past week has shown that the Trump administration is most certainly not an ally of Europe, let alone Ukraine. The contempt with which President Zelensky was treated is a textbook example of how not to ‘do diplomacy’, even with someone whose politics you do not necessarily agree with. I’m no expert, but dressing down a fellow world leader, in front of the world’s media, is not the way to go about making friends on the world stage and bolstering your reputation as the ‘negotiator’. What I do have however is a literal expert in diplomacy on my phone. Antony Stokes LVO OBE, in his comments on the recent situation, points to the need by Europe of the US as an ally, and that, currently, we are not fully prepared for self-defence with our friend across the pond. 

While this may be true, the hat that our friend is currently wearing is orange and loud and we don’t like it. JD Vance took it upon himself to prime the charge and asked the war leader whether he had once said “Have you said thank you once?”. Trump followed up with: 

Do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

During the grenade-throwing in the Oval Office it was clear that a) the Trump administration is dramatically misinformed about Russia’s violation of Ukraine; or b) they are worse than we thought (the only time they will exceed our expectations I think) and are deliberately choosing to ignore the facts. Sam Greene of King’s College London says that this was deliberate, and “a train wreck by design”.

President Macron, who had the privilege(?) of being in the Oval Office just a day earlier than Zelensky, later said this following the showdown between Eastern and Western presidents: 

Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the aggressed people … These are simple things, but they’re good to remember at times like these.

Facts aside. My favourite part of the drama was provided by Brian Glenn. The host of ‘Real America’s Voice’, and husband to Marjorie Taylor Greene (make of that what you will),asked Zelensky why he didn’t wear a suit to the White House – Why don’t you wear a suit? Do you own a suit?  You’re the highest level in this country’s office and you refuse to wear a suit. Just want to see if you, do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of his office.

I think the reason that the President of Ukraine, which, in case anyone has forgotten, is at war, didn’t dress up for his dressing-down, is because all dignity left the White House when Trump arrived for his second term. It’s hard to respect an office when the occupant of it disgraces both its name and history – and that’s with competition like Buchanan! 

Returning to actual politics – serious-faced. I am happy to see that not all Americans are looking at this the Trump way. Bret Stephens in the New York Times writes on the mineral deal that has been imposed on Ukraine by the US Treasury Department: 

If Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky. Whatever one might say about how Zelensky played his cards poorly – either by failing to behave with the degree of all-fours sycophancy that Trump demands or to maintain his composure in the face of JD Vance’s disingenuous provocations – this was a day of American infamy.

I am glad our Prime Minister has renewed the UK’s commitment to the cause of freedom and sovereignty in Ukraine. Despite our political differences, I am glad we have an adult representing us on the global stage. I am confident that, if we look to our allies in Europe, we can prepare ourselves for the darker times that lie ahead.

The jailing of Cheshire MP Mike Amesbury for ten weeks following his assault of a constituent means that a recall petition has been triggered, and a by-election looms for the constituents of Runcorn and Helsby. This is undoubtedly a huge headache for the Prime Minister, who now faces his first by election since moving into 10 Downing Street. For us Lib Dems, it’s an opportunity.

Amesbury has already had the whip removed and is now facing calls to step down. This, combined with the recall petition, means a by-election is likely. Besides, Members of Parliament have a difficult job as it is, without having to work remotely from one His Majesty’s Prisons.

Jokes aside, we have an opportunity to give our colleagues Tom Morrison MP (Cheadle) and Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove) a new neighbour up in Cheshire, and put up a proper fight against Reform. But it’s not going to be easy. Predictions are flowing in that Reform UK is going to capitalise on its national momentum and add a 6th to their gaggle of populist parliamentarians.

Josh Self in Politics.co.uk is right when he says that Farage will be hellbent on securing another seat for Reform, but not just because of the extra short money which will be his “proof” that he is the true opposition. Another thing he gets right, however, is acknowledging the skill, dedication, and lethal effectiveness of our Liberal Democrat local campaigners:

“Can Reform replicate the by-election-winning capability of the Liberal Democrats historically? Will mere motivation prove an ample counterweight if the get-the-vote-out operation is found lacking? In other words: is Reform ready?” – Josh Self, Editor at Politics.co.uk

Reform aren’t the only ones with national momentum. YouGov has us up two points, from 14% to 16%—our highest polling since 2019. But polls don’t win elections—campaigning does. Now, we need to turn that energy into action, take the fight to Reform, and prove once again that when it comes to by-elections, no one outworks the Liberal Democrats. Cheshire is ours to win—let’s get to it.

Earlier this year Cllr Anton Georgiou resigned and triggered a by-election in Alperton, and paved the way for Charlie Clinton, former parliamentary candidate in Holborn and St Pancras, to stand. In the wee hours of Wednesday 19th, it became clear that the Liberal Democrats held strong. With nearly more votes than all candidates combined, Charlie now joins the small but energetic team of Liberal Democrat Councillors in Brent, but while the Lib Dem voice on the council may be small, that of Alperton residents was heard loud and clear.

Fought over street cleanliness and the availability of much-needed social housing, the by-election result showed how Liberal Democrats are the strong choice when Labour fails to live up to its promises. An ex-Labour Party member wrote in Wembley Matters:

“Brent residents need a Council that listens, does the right thing, tells the truth because it is worth telling and represents the electorate first”

They also said that the incumbent Labour government is partly to blame for the Labour vote collapsing in Alperton, but it is not an insignificant insight. From the outrage caused by the changes to Agricultural Property Relief and the tax on family farms, to axing winter fuel payments for struggling pensioners, many voters are voicing their grievances with Labour by shredding them at the polls in by-elections, or shifting the tide in the opinion polls.

The first YouGov poll since the GE last year indicates a 1-point contest between Reform and Labour, with only a slim, majority of Labour voters saying they’d back the party again at another election. This is both exciting (here is the politics student in me), and troubling (there’s the Lib Dem).

As Cllr Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin of Torridge District Council wrote in the Western Morning News, the “Tories are no friends of UK’s farmers” and neither are Reform friends of any other communities they purport to be the allies of. This is the challenge of the Liberal Democrats in every council seat as we gear up to take on the locals in May: reminding people that we are the steadfast allies of farmers, pensioners, working people, students, teachers, carers, and care-users.

Whilst the noise of percentage polls and the right-wing wave from across the pond puts wind in Reform’s sails, we can be out there, making a real difference for real people. Just as in Alperton.

A complex history on the world stage, the United States has often been dipped in and out of phases of isolationism. However, Trump and his entourage’s latest escapade against the US Agency for International Development has them pictured as the sleepy-eyed teenager shouting furiously down the stairs “It’s not a phase mom!”. Phase or not. Other agencies in the executive branch have been told to remain wide awake for the overhauls that Musk’s DOGE has in store for them, in what is bearing up to be the biggest bedroom-tidying of federal government in US history.

GOP Lawmakers have raised few objections to the plans to axe USAID and have mostly sat on their hands as Trump’s appointments, list of tariffs, and federal grant freezes have all been approved by the Republican Class of ’24. Democrats, however, have soured on Musk’s blitzkrieg through government agencies, with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) saying that the “American people, mark my words, the American people will not stand for an unelected secret group to run rampant in the executive branch.” Former economic adviser to conservative Republicans and now economic policy expert at the Manhattan Institute, Brian Reidl, has joined the Dems in condemning Musk’s anti-bureaucratic march through the Capitol as an “erosion of our democracy”.

Many senior Dems in Congress are prepared to go as far as shutting government down to prevent Musk from sending other agencies and departments to the same mass grave as USAID, and, supposedly, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On March 14 the stopgap spending authority enacted in December last year runs out, and Democrats are considering keeping government running and risking a debt default to halt the Trump administration’s culling efforts. A huge change of tact for what has almost always been known as the ‘party of government’. The most senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray (D-Wash) told Punchbowl News:

“Democrats are, as always, committed to responsibly funding the government, but it is extremely difficult to reach an agreement on toplines — much less full-year spending bills — when the president is illegally blocking vast chunks of approved funding, when he is trying to unilaterally shutter critical agencies, and when an unelected billionaire is empowered to force his way into our government’s central, highly-sensitive payments system [at the Treasury Department]. Democrats and Republicans alike must be able to trust that when a deal gets signed into law, it will be followed.”

Murray’s colleague on the House Appropriations Committee Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) joined her counterpart in the Senate claiming that Trump’s cuts to federal funding, grants, and the axing of USAID hurts the United States’ standing on the global stage. Despite this gloomy outlook, however, the representative for Connecticut’s 3rd congressional district is still hopeful that a deal can be reached over the funding of government in FY2025, but only if such an agreement means that spending is done within the parameters set by Congress.

These parameters hang in the balance after the Senate Budget Committee’s advancement of Russell Vought’s nomination to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), parameters set by the Impoundment Control Act 1974. Vought – who lead the OMB in Trump’s last administration – was advanced by Senate Republicans 11-0 in Committee, a vote in which the Democrats abstained in opposition to Vought’s stance on the 1974 Act, and his views to curb Congress’ power of the purse.

The Impoundment Control Act prevents the President or other executive departments from re-appropriating Congress-approved funds for their purposes, which Vought believes to be unconstitutional.

So, with Republicans taking a backseat and Democrats waging war, the fight for the power of the purse is well and truly on. Will Congress’s power tumble down Capitol Hill?

Well, not exactly.

As part of their “devolution by default” outlook, the Government wants every area in England to work towards devolving greater powers from Whitehall and into the hands of local communities, ending a “deals-based” approach.

In what is the largest shake-up of local government in decades, Devon County Council and it’s eight district councils are all set to merge in this attempt by Angela Rayner, Deputy PM and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to “streamline” local councils. This, the White Paper says, will be done by bringing together councils in area in which people live and work, and ending “two-tier” local authority where there are both wider county and smaller district councils at play. This further complicates an already painful headache, with district councils and Exeter City Council overlapping in their responsibility for areas like local planning, housing, and waste collection, and Plymouth and Torbay responsible for all local government matters. Moreover, earlier this year, under this now ended “deals-based” approach to devolution, Devon County Council and Torbay were given the green light to create a Combined County Authority (CCA) to exercise more power over local transport, housing etc. This deal did not include Plymouth City Council.

In addition to removing “two-tier” authorities in England through the abolition of district councils, the Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government wants all areas of England to become “strategic authorities” with an elected mayor. The requirements for thus being a combined population of 1.5m or above, which, as MP for Newton Abbot Martin Wrigley identifies, would mean that Devon & Cornwall would become a super-mayoralty.

Another requirement for the formation of these new authorities is the shared identities and cultures at play. Leader of Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall said that the White Paper constituted a “grim day” for the county, and that the Government had not taken into account Cornwall’s “unique historic, cultural and constitutional status within the UK”. With Devon’s population of around 1.2 million, and Cornwall half that, the Government’s plans to merge the two counties will not only distance people from their elected local officials – the exact opposite of what devolution is supposed to achieve – but it will put two counties, each with their own distinct cultures and histories, together as one. Hardly conducive to a better governed UK.

Martin Wrigley has highlighted a fundamental issue with the Government’s white paper on English Devolution: the troubling lack of clarity surrounding the criteria for establishing strategic authorities. The white paper acknowledges that there “may be exceptions” to these criteria, yet it fails to define what those exceptions might be, leaving local leaders and communities in a state of uncertainty. As Wrigley aptly noted on social media, “they need to make that clear here.” The issue is compounded by the fact that local governance thrives on transparency and accountability. Strategic authorities, tasked with significant responsibilities over areas such as transport, infrastructure, and economic development, require a clear and predictable foundation to operate effectively. A system based on exceptions rather than defined rules risks becoming arbitrary, eroding confidence among both local leaders and the communities they serve.

This, I’m afraid, will only leave Devonians like me in a worse position than before, without progress, without clarity, and without bringing power and politics closer to home.