Banning ransomware payments: An attractive but dangerous idea
A successful cyberattack on critical infrastructure — such as electricity grids, transportation networks or healthcare systems — could cause severe disruption and put lives at risk.
Our understanding of the threat is far from complete since organizations have historically not been required to report data breaches, but attacks are on the rise according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A recent rule from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission should help clarify matters further by now requiring that organizations “disclose material cybersecurity incidents they experience.”
As the digital world continues to expand and integrate into every facet of society, the looming specter of cyber threats becomes increasingly more critical. Today, these cyber threats have taken the form of sophisticated ransomware attacks and debilitating data breaches, particularly targeting essential infrastructure.
A major question coming from policymakers, however, is whether businesses faced with crippling ransomware attacks and potentially life threatening consequences should have the option to pay out large amounts of cryptocurrency to make the problem go away. Some believe ransoms be banned for fear of encouraging ever more attacks.
Following a major ransomware attack in Australia, its government has been considering a ban on paying ransoms. The United States has also more recently been exploring a ban. But other leading cybersecurity experts argue that a ban does little to solve the root problem.
Ransomware and the ethical dilemma of whether to pay the ransom
At the most basic level, ransomware is simply a form of malware that encrypts the victim’s data and demands a ransom for its release. A recent study by Chainalysis shows that crypto cybercrime is down by 65% over the past year, with the exception of ransomware, which saw an increase.
“Ransomware is the one form of cryptocurrency-based crime on the rise so far in 2023. In fact, ransomware attackers are on pace for their second-biggest year ever, having extorted at least $449.1 million through June,” said Chainalysis.
Even though there has been a decline in the number of crypto transactions, malicious actors have been going after larger organizations more aggressively. Chainalysis continued:
“Big game hunting — that is, the targeting of large, deep-pocketed organizations by ransomware attackers — seems to have bounced back after a lull in 2022. At the same time, the number of successful small attacks has also grown.”
The crippling effect of ransomware is especially pronounced for businesses that heavily rely on data and system availability.
The dilemma of whether to pay the ransom is contentious. On one hand, paying the ransom might be seen as the quickest way to restore operations, especially when lives or livelihoods are at stake. On the other hand, succumbing to the demands of criminals creates a vicious cycle, encouraging and financing future attacks.
Organizations grappling with this decision must weigh several factors, including the potential loss if operations cannot be restored promptly, the likelihood of regaining access after payment, and the broader societal implications of incentivizing cybercrime. For some, the decision is purely pragmatic; for others, it’s deeply ethical.
Should paying ransoms be banned?
The increasing incidence of ransomware attacks has ignited a policy debate: Should the payment of ransoms be banned? Following a major ransomware attack on Australian consumer lender Latitude Financial, in which millions of customer records and IDs were stolen, some have begun to advocate for a ban on paying the ransom as a way of deterring attacks and depriving cybercriminals of their financial incentives.
In the United States, the White House has voiced its qualified support for a ban. “Fundamentally, money drives ransomware and for an individual entity it may be that they make a decision to pay, but for the larger problem of ransomware that is the wrong decision… We have to ask ourselves, would that be helpful more broadly if companies and others didn’t make ransom payments?” said Anne Neuberger, deputy national security advisor for cyber and emerging technologies in the White House.
While proponents argue that it will deter criminals and reorient priorities for C-suite executives, critics, however, warn that a ban might leave victims in an untenable position, particularly when a data breach could lead to loss of life, as in the case of attacks on healthcare facilities.
“The prevailing advice from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is to discourage organizations from paying ransoms to attackers,” Jacqueline Burns Koven, head of cyber threat intelligence for Chainalysis, tells Magazine.
“This stance is rooted in the understanding that paying ransoms perpetuates the problem, as it incentivizes attackers to continue their malicious activities, knowing that they can effectively hold organizations hostage for financial gain. However, some situations may be exceptionally dire, where organizations and perhaps even individuals face existential threats due to ransomware attacks. In such cases, the decision to pay the ransom may be an agonizing but necessary choice. Testimony from the FBI recognizes this nuance, allowing room for organizations to make their own decisions in these high-stakes scenarios, and voiced opposition to an all out ban on payments.”
Another complicating factor is that an increasing number of ransomware attacks, according to Chainalysis, may not have financial demands but instead focus on blackmail and other espionage purposes.
“In such cases, there may be no feasible way to pay the attackers, as their demands may go beyond monetary compensation… In the event that an organization finds itself in a situation where paying the ransom is the only viable option, it is essential to emphasize the importance of reporting the incident to relevant authorities.”
“Transparency in reporting ransomware attacks is crucial for tracking and understanding the tactics, techniques and procedures employed by malicious actors. By sharing information about attacks and their aftermath, the broader cybersecurity community can collaborate to improve defenses and countermeasures against future threats,” Koven continues.
Could we enforce a ban on paying ransomware attackers?
Even if a ban were implemented, a key challenge is the difficulty in enforcing it. The clandestine nature of these transactions complicates tracing and regulation. Furthermore, international cooperation is necessary to curb these crimes, and achieving a global consensus on a ransom payment ban might be challenging.
While banning ransom payments could encourage some organizations to invest more in robust cybersecurity measures, disaster recovery plans and incident response teams to prevent, detect and mitigate the impact of cyberattacks, it still amounts to penalizing the victim and making the decision for them.
“Unfortunately, bans on extortions have traditionally not been an effective way to reduce crime — it simply criminalizes victims who need to pay or shifts criminals to new tactics,” says Davis Hake, co-founder of Resilience Insurance who says claims data over the past year shows that while ransomware is still a growing crisis, some clients are already taking steps toward becoming more cyber-resilient and able to withstand an attack.
“By preparing executive teams to deal with an attack, implementing controls that help companies restore from backups, and investing in technologies like EDR and MFA, we’ve found that clients are significantly less likely to pay extortion, with a significant number not needing to pay it at all. The insurance market can be a positive force for incentivizing these changes among enterprises and hit cybercriminals where it hurts: their wallets,” Hake continues.
The growing threat and risk of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure
The costs of ransomware attacks on infrastructure are often ultimately borne by taxpayers and municipalities that are stuck with cleaning up the mess.
To understand the economic effects of cyberattacks on municipalities, I released a research paper with several faculty colleagues, drawing on all publicly reported data breaches and municipal bond market data. In fact, a 1% increase in the county-level cyberattacks covered by the media leads to an increase in offering yields ranging from 3.7 to 5.9 basis points, depending on the level of attack exposure. Evaluating these estimates at the average annual issuance of $235 million per county implies $13 million in additional annual interest costs per county.
One reason for the significant adverse effects of data breaches on municipalities and critical infrastructure stems from all the interdependencies in these systems. Vulnerabilities related to Internet of Things (IoT) and industrial control systems (ICS) increased at an “even faster rate than overall vulnerabilities, with these two categories experiencing a 16% and 50% year over year increase, respectively, compared to a 0.4% growth rate in the number of vulnerabilities overall, according to the X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2022 by IBM.
Read also
A key factor contributing to this escalating threat is the rapid expansion of the attack surface due to IoT, remote work environments and increased reliance on cloud services. With more endpoints to exploit, threat actors have more opportunities to gain unauthorized access and wreak havoc.
“Local governments face a significant dilemma… On one hand, they are charged with safeguarding a great deal of digital records that contain their citizens’ private information. On the other hand, their cyber and IT experts must fight to get sufficient financial support needed to properly defend their networks,” says Brian de Vallance, former DHS assistant secretary.
“Public entities face a number of challenges in managing their cyber risk — the top most is budget. IT spending accounted for less than 0.1% of overall municipal budgets, according to M.K. Hamilton & Associates. This traditional underinvestment in security has made it more and more challenging for these entities to obtain insurance from the traditional market.”
Cybersecurity reform should involve rigorous regulatory standards, incentives for improving cybersecurity measures and support for victims of cyberattacks. Public-private partnerships can facilitate sharing of threat intelligence, providing organizations with the information they need to defend against attacks. Furthermore, federal support, in the form of resources or subsidies, can also help smaller organizations – whether small business or municipalities – that are clearly resource constrained so they have funds to invest more in cybersecurity.
Toward solutions
So, is the solution a market for cybersecurity insurance? A competitive market to hedge against cyber risk will likely emerge as organizations are increasingly required to report material incidents. A cyber insurance market would still not solve the root of the problem: Organizations need help becoming resilient. Small and mid-sized businesses, according to my research with professors Annie Boustead and Scott Shackelford, are especially vulnerable.
“Investment in digital transformation is expected to reach $2T in 2023 according to IDC and all of this infrastructure presents an unimaginable target for cybercriminals. While insurance is excellent at transferring financial risk from cybercrime, it does nothing to actually ensure this investment remains available for the business,” says Hake, who says there is a “huge opportunity” for insurance companies to help clients improve “cyber hygiene, reduce incident costs, and support financial incentives for investing in security controls.”
Encouragingly, Hake has noticed a trend for more companies to “work with clients to provide insights on vulnerabilities and incentivize action on patching critical vulnerabilities.”
“One pure-technology mitigation that could help is SnapShield, a ‘ransomware activated fuse,’ which works through behavioral analysis,” says Doug Milburn, founder of 45Drives. “This is agentless software that runs on your server and listens to traffic from clients. If it detects any ransomware content, SnapShield pops the connection to your server, just like a fuse. Damage is stopped, and it is business as usual for the rest of your network, while your IT personnel clean out the infected workstation. It also keeps a detailed log of the malicious activity and has a restore function that instantly repairs any damage that may have occurred to your data,” he continues.
Ransomware attacks are also present within the crypto market, and there is a growing recognition that new tools are needed to build on-chain resilience. “While preventative measures are important, access controlled data backups are imperative. If a business is using a solution, like Jackal Protocol, to routinely back up its state and files, it could reboot without paying ransoms with minimal losses,” said Eric Waisanen, co-founder of Astrovault.
Ultimately, tackling the growing menace of cyber threats requires a holistic approach that combines policy measures, technological solutions and human vigilance. Whether a ban on ransom payments is implemented, the urgency of investing in robust cybersecurity frameworks cannot be overstated. As we navigate an increasingly digital future, our approach to cybersecurity will play a pivotal role in determining how secure that future will be.
Emory Roane, policy counsel at PRCD, says that mandatory disclosure of cyber breaches and offering identity theft protection services are essential, but it “still leaves consumers left to pick up the pieces for, potentially, a business’ poor security practices.”
But the combination of mandatory disclosure and the threat of getting sued may be the most effective. He highlights the California Consumer Privacy Act.
“It provides a private right of action allowing consumers to sue businesses directly in the event that a business suffers a data breach that exposes a consumer’s personal information and that breach was caused by the business’ failure to use reasonable security measures,” Roane explains. That dovetails with a growing recognition that data is an important consumer asset that has long been overlooked and transferred to companies without remuneration.
Greater education around cybersecurity and data sovereignty will not only help consumers stay alert to ongoing threats — e.g., phishing emails — but also empower them to pursue and value more holistic solutions to information security and data sharing so that the incidence of ransomware attacks is lower and less severe when they do happen.
Bans rarely work, if for no other reason than enforcement is either physically impossible or prohibitively expensive. Giving into ransoms is not ideal, but neither is penalizing the entity that is going through a crisis. What organizations need are better tools and techniques – and that is something that the cybersecurity industry, in collaboration with policymakers, can help with through new technologies and the adoption of best practices.
Subscribe
The most engaging reads in blockchain. Delivered once a
week.
What are tariffs?
Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.
Four main categories of tariffs are:
- Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
- Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
- Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
- Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.
The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.
In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.
Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.
Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.
Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025.
Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.
The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.
Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world.
The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.
Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.
The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict
The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.
The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China.
Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.
The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.
While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.
As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.
Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching.
Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:
- Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
- China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
- The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
- Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
- European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
- Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.
How do tariffs work?
When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.
For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.
Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.
Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.
Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.
Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.
Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks.
Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.
Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.
Why do tariffs matter for global markets?
Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.
For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices.
When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders.
Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term.
Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.
As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy.
Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.
Who sets tariff policy in the US?
In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.
Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.
The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade.
Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.
Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.
Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy
Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.
Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.
Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.
Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses.
While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.
“Return hubs” that would see Britain send failed asylum seekers to another country have been endorsed by the UN’s refugee agency.
There have been reports that Sir Keir Starmer’s government is looking into deporting illegal migrants to the Balkans.
According to The Times, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN’s high commissioner for refugees last month to discuss the idea.
It would see the government pay countries in the Balkans to take failed asylum seekers – a prospect ministers hope might discourage people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
A total of 9,099 migrants have made that journey so far this year, including more than 700 on Tuesday this week – the highest number on a single day in 2025.
One migrant died while trying to make the crossing on Friday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
One dead in Channel crossing
The UN’s refugee agency has set out how such hubs could work while meeting its legal standards in a document published earlier this week.
It recommended monitoring the hubs to make sure human rights standards are “reliably met”.
The country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal status for migrants, and the country sending the failed asylum seekers would need to support it to make sure there are “adequate accommodation and reception arrangements”.
A UK government source said it was a helpful intervention that could make the legal pathway to some form of return hub model smoother.
Read more from Sky News:
How Japan could shape future of NHS
Can the Lib Dems secure election success?
It comes after the EU Commission proposed allowing EU members to set up so-called “return hubs” abroad, with member state Italy having already started sending illegal migrants abroad.
It sends people with no right to remain to Italian-run detention centres in Albania, something Sir Keir has taken an interest in since coming to power.
With Reform UK leading Labour in several opinion polls this year, the prime minister has been talking tough on immigration – but the figures around Channel crossings have made for difficult reading.
Lib Dems don’t tend to listen to right-wing podcasts.
But if they did, they may be heartened by some of what they hear.
Take the interview Kemi Badenoch gave to the TRIGGERnometry show in February.
Ten minutes into the episode, one of the hosts recounts a conversation with a Tory MP who said the party lost the last election to the Lib Dems because they went too far to the right.
Everyone laughs.
Then in March, in a conversation with the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, the Tory leader was asked to describe a Liberal Democrat.
“Somebody who is good at fixing their church roof,” said Ms Badenoch.
She meant it as a negative.
Lib Dems now mention it every time you go near any of them with a TV camera.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘It’s a two-horse race!’
The pitch is clear, the stunts are naff
At times, party figures seem somewhat astonished the Tories don’t view them as more of a threat, given they were beaten by them in swathes of their traditional heartlands last year.
Going forward, the pitch is clear.
Sir Ed Davey wants to replace the Tories as the party of middle England.
Sir Ed rides on a rollercoaster. Pic: PA
One way he’s trying to do that is through somewhat naff and very much twee campaign stunts.
To open this local election race, the Lib Dem leader straddled a hobbyhorse and galloped through a blue fence.
More recently, he’s brandished a sausage, hopped aboard a rollercoaster and planted wildflowers.
Senior Lib Dems say they are “constantly asking” whether this is the correct strategy, especially given the hardship being faced by many in the country.
They maintain it is helping get their message out though, according to the evidence they have.
“I think you can take the issues that matter to voters seriously while not taking yourself too seriously, and I also think it’s a way of engaging people who are turned off by politics,” said Sir Ed.
Sir Ed on a hobby horse during the launch of the party’s local election campaign in the Walled Garden of Badgemore Park in Henley-on-Thames. Pic: PA
Pic: PA
‘What if people don’t want grown-ups?’
In that way, the Lib Dems are fishing in a similar pool of voters to Reform UK, albeit from the other side of the water’s edge.
Indeed, talk to Lib Dem MPs, and they say while some Reform supporters they meet would never vote for a party with the word “liberal” in its name, others are motivated more by generalised anger than any traditional political ideology.
These people, the MPs say, can be persuaded.
But this group also shows a broader risk to the Lib Dem approach.
Put simply, are they simply too nice for the fractured times we live in?
“The Lib Dems want to be the grown-ups in the room,” says Joe Twyman, director of Delta Poll.
“We like to think that the grown-ups in the room will be rewarded… but what if people don’t want grown-ups in the room, what if people want kids shitting on the floor.”
Sir Ed canoeing in the River Severn in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Pic: PA
A plan that looks different to the status quo
The party’s answer to this is that they are alive to the trap Lib Dems have walked into in the past of adopting a technocratic tone and blandly telling the public every issue is a “bit more complicated” than it seems.
One senior figure says the Lib Dems are trying to do something quite unusual for a progressive centre-left party in making a broader emotional argument about why the public should pick them.
This source says that approach runs through the stunts but also through the focus on care and the party leader’s personal connection to the issue.
Presenting a plan that looks different to the status quo is another way to try to stand apart.
It’s why there has been a focus on attacking Donald Trump and talking up the EU recently, two areas left unoccupied by the main parties.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘A snivelling cretin’: Your response?
The focus on local campaigning
But beyond the national strategy, Lib Dems believe it’s their local campaigning that really reaps rewards.
In the run-up to the last election, several more regional press officers were recruited.
Many stories pumped out by the media office now have a focus on data that can be broken down to a constituency level and given to local news outlets.
Party sources say there has also been a concerted attempt to get away from the cliche of the Lib Dems constantly calling for parliament to be recalled.
“They beat us to it,” said one staffer of the recent recall to debate British Steel.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Steel might have been ‘under orders’ from China
‘Gail’s bakery rule’
This focus on the local is helped by the fact many Lib Dem constituencies now look somewhat similar.
That was evidenced by the apparent “Gail’s bakery rule” last year, in which any constituency with a branch of the upmarket pastry purveyor had activists heaped on it.
The similarities have helped the Lib Dems get away from another cliche – that of the somewhat opportunist targeting of different areas with very different messages.
“There is a certain consistency in where we won that helps explain that higher vote retention,” said Lib Dem president Lord Pack.
“Look at leaflets in different constituencies [last year] and they were much more consistent than previous elections… the messages are fundamentally the same in a way that was not always the case in the past.”
Sir Ed in a swan pedalo on Bude Canal in Cornwall. Pic: PA
A bottom-up campaign machine
New MPs have also been tasked with demonstrating delivery and focusing doggedly on the issues that matter to their constituents.
One Home Counties MP says he wants to be able to send out leaflets by 2027, saying “everyone in this constituency knows someone who has been helped by their local Lib Dem”.
In the run-up to last year’s vote, strategists gave the example of the Lib Dem candidate who was invited to a local ribbon-cutting ceremony in place of the sitting Tory MP as proof of how the party can ingratiate itself into communities.
With that in mind, the aim for these local elections is to pick up councillors in the places the party now has new MPs, allowing them to dig in further and keep building a bottom-up campaign machine.
‘Anyone but Labour or Conservative’
But what of the next general election?
Senior Lib Dems are confident of holding their current 72 seats.
They also point to the fact 20 of their 27 second-place finishes currently have a Conservative MP.
Those will be the main focus, along with the 43 seats in which they finished third.
There’s also an acronym brewing to describe the approach – ABLOC or “Anyone but Labour or Conservative”.
Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch aren’t exactly flying high in the opinion polls
9% swing could make Sir Ed leader of the opposition
The hope is for the political forces to align and Reform UK to continue splitting the Tory vote while unpopularity with the Labour government and Conservative opposition triggers some to jump ship.
A recent pamphlet by Lord Pack showed if the Tories did not make progress against the other parties, just 25 gains from them by the Lib Dems – the equivalent of a 9% swing – would be enough to make Sir Ed leader of the opposition.
What’s more, a majority of these seats would be in the South East and South West, where the party has already picked up big wins.
As for the overall aim of all this, Lord Pack is candid the Lib Dems shouldn’t view a hung parliament as the best way to achieve the big prize of electoral reform because they almost always end badly for the smaller party.
Instead, the Lib Dem president suggests the potential fragmentation of politics could bring electoral reform closer in a more natural way.
“What percentage share of the vote is the most popular party going to get at the next general election, it’s quite plausible that that will be under 30%. Our political system can’t cope with that sort of world,” he said.
Whether Ms Badenoch will still be laughing then remains to be seen.
This is part of a series of local election previews with the five major parties. All five have been invited to take part.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway