Kemi Badenoch says Lib Dems are people who fix church roofs. Yes: that's why we're popular and she isn‘t
Do you know somebody who is good at fixing the local church roof? Who is well liked in your community? Well, if we are to go by the comments of the leader of the Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch, they are quite likely to be standing as a Liberal Democrat candidate in next week's local elections.
Yes, that's right. According to Badenoch, a Lib Dem is 'somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And … the people in the community like them.'
Reader, I will let you in on a secret. I think she meant it as an insult. But I'll happily wear it as a badge of honour – as will more than 1,000 Lib-Dem candidates standing across England for election on 1 May. And don't her comments tell you all you need to know about the state of the Tory party in 2025? Completely out of touch, serially online and with a sneering attitude to serving your community.
The Conservatives were deservedly kicked out of office last year by the British public. But, sadly, whole swathes of the country are still having to put up with the dire record of failing Tory-run councils and councillors. And in so many parts of England – from Cornwall to Cambridgeshire – it is the Lib Dems who are the main challengers. We are a party that views being a champion for local people – fixing a church roof or a pothole, or helping clean up a local river – as something worth fighting for.
I have been travelling across the country these past few weeks – albeit via some unusual modes of transport: swan boats, diggers, teacups and, of course, a horse (of the hobby variety). And so many of the local people I've met have told me about how they want to kick the Conservatives out of local government in their area.
But I have also been struck by the disappointment at the new Labour government. Before I embarked on a rollercoaster ride at the Big Sheep theme park in Devon last week, the owner explained to me how, while they were looking forward to a new government after years of struggling through a cost of living crisis, Labour's changes have actually made things worse. The hospitality industry in the south-west, and across so many parts of the country, is being hammered. Wherever I go, there has been a sense of despondency – whether about the cut to the winter fuel payment, which has forced pensioners to choose between heating or eating, or the failure to solve the longstanding crisis in social care.
Anger at the Conservatives, despondency at Labour. It is in these conditions that the easy soundbites of Nigel Farage and Reform UK can start to sound compelling. But the occasional member for Clacton and his ilk offer no real solutions.
Let's be frank: if you want to fix the NHS, why would you put your trust in a man who has in the past said he wanted to replace healthcare that's free at the point of use with an insurance-based model (whatever he may say now)? If you care about high-quality British food, why would you support someone who is in favour of allowing US chlorinated chicken on to UK supermarket shelves? And if you love your country, why stick with someone who would rather suck up to Vladimir Putin – the world leader he admires most – than stand up for Britain?
In the Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election, what everyone expected to be a Lib Dem v Labour fight is turning into one between the Lib Dems and Reform. That's why the bookies' odds now show Reform and the Lib Dems in the top two, with Labour trailing in fourth place as eight to one outsiders. When you compare the records of the two parties, there is no contest. We have a strong record of running Hull council – and many other local authorities across the country – and of being an effective opposition in East Riding. Meanwhile, Farage can't even run his own party. He and his MPs are fighting like rats in a sack. He is overseeing a bin fire – yet wants you to believe that Reform can be trusted with running your local bin collections.
The fundamental difference is that the Lib Dems work hard for our communities. We are winning up and down the country. So, on 1 May, remember, whether it's a church roof that needs fixing, local crime that needs cutting, or a GP or dentist you need help to see, Liberal Democrats will be fighting for a fair deal for you and your community.
Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrats and MP for Kingston and Surbiton
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Trade unions join forces to demand end to ban on 'sympathy strikes'
Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s Trade unions have joined together to call for laws banning 'sympathy strikes' to be scrapped. Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s. Now the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), the British Medical Association (BMA) and other unions have signed a joint statement in support of a proposed change to the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords. The statement reads: "For too long, the current legal restrictions have served to isolate disputes, weaken solidarity and limit workers' ability to collectively challenge unfair conditions - particularly in an increasingly fragmented and outsourced employment landscape.' Fire Brigades Union general secretary Steve Wright said: 'It's time for the government to finally overturn anti-worker laws brought in by the Conservatives to attack pay and conditions. 'The ban on workers supporting strikes across sectors is a Tory relic from the nineties. 'The aim has always been to isolate and limit workers' ability to stand up against employers threatening pay cuts and worsening conditions. 'These undemocratic restrictions are part of the UK being one of the worst countries for workers' rights in Europe. We urge all members of the House of Lords to support this amendment and restore this basic democratic right.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
MPs could vote to force government to build 150,000 social homes a year
A proposed change to the Planning and Infrastructure bill would demand a 150,000 target for building social homes this Parliament LIb Dem MPs will push for a vote to force the government to set a target on social homes. A proposed change to the Planning and Infrastructure bill would demand a 150,000 target for building social homes this Parliament. It comes amid reports Deputy PM Angela Rayner is locked in a struggle with the Treasury over the Housing budget ahead of this weeks spending review. Agreement has yet to be reached on funding for the Housing department, which is responsible for delivering Labour 's target of 1.5 million new homes - including a promised social housing 'revolution' - by the end of the Parliament. The Lib Dems amendment would also make it mandatory for new car parks to have solar panels on them. And it would create a pubic register of donations made to the Housing Secretary from developers whose projects they have commissioned, dating back ten years. Liberal Democrat Housing and Planning Spokesperson Gideon Amos MP said: "For too long, planning and infrastructure regulations have been in the slow lane, preventing economic growth that would help put money back into British families' pockets. 'If the Government is serious about kickstarting the economy, they need to be far more ambitious. This starts with finally setting a social housing target, and pushing ahead with the healthcare, GPs, transport and energy infrastructure that communities want to see come first where new housing is proposed.' The Party is also pushing for stricter protections for local wildlife and habitats, with requirements on ministers and Natural England to take steps to prevent and reduce adverse effects on the environment. One of their amendments would also ensure development corporations provide green spaces in all new developments.
