
Adam Boulton: Pressure on Starmer to pick a cabinet secretary to guide him after bad start
More Videos
Published
7 months agoon
By
adminSir Keir Starmer’s government has not yet been in place for 100 days. By all accounts, things are not going well.
The Labour leader and his top ministers have had to backtrack after taking freebies totalling many thousands of pounds for clothing and entertainment. Sue Gray, the ex-civil servant he recruited as chief of staff, has accepted a salary larger than the prime minister while standing accused of cutting the pay of more junior special advisers coming into government.
The biggest announcement the government has made yet – cutting winter fuel payments for most pensioners – was poorly presented, coinciding with big pay rises for public sector trade unionists and leading to a rebellion by Labour MPs. So far, eight of them have either been suspended or resigned the whip. Labour is dropping in opinion polls. Meanwhile, the prime minister often seems defensive and belligerent when interviewed and at a loose end at important gatherings.
It is still early days. None of these teething troubles directly threaten a government that commands an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. But there is universal agreement ranging from Sir Keir’s friends to his political foes that he needs to get a grip on running the country, starting with appointing the best people as his senior advisers and officials.
The historian Sir Anthony Seldon, the author of a series of books on prime ministers in 10 Downing Street, warns “Starmer needs to act quickly. He has been naive and complacent on staff appointments. Get it right now and he can fly.”

Cabinet Secretary Sir Simon Case will step down by the end of the year as he has been suffering from a neurological condition. Pic: PA
This week a major opportunity presented itself. The cabinet secretary, Sir Simon Case, at last announced he will step down at the end of this year. The man or woman who fills his shoes will be vital in properly establishing and relaunching the way the UK is ruled by the new government.
According to the official advert: “The cabinet secretary and head of the civil service is the most senior civil servant in the UK and the principal official adviser to the prime minister and Cabinet.”
More on Labour
Related Topics:
The salary is £200,000 a year, also more than the prime minister, plus a hefty 28.7% pension contribution. Applicants have until 11.55pm on 20 October to get in their CV, a 1000-word statement, a diversity questionnaire and a declaration of interests.
Sir Simon’s departure had been long expected. Some blame the prime minister for not forcing the vacancy sooner. Cabinet secretary is the most important of an unprecedented number of unfilled posts among Starmer’s top advisers, also including principal private secretary (PPS), his personal civil service aide, and national security adviser. Without them, few are surprised he has not got on top of being prime minister.
Advertisement
Sir Simon has been absent for long periods due to a serious neurological illness. In truth, he never really settled in as the respected boss of some half a million civil servants. Still only 45, he was much younger than most cabinet secretaries when installed in 2020 by the chaotic Boris Johnson government after Mark Sedwill was unceremoniously pushed aside. Sir Simon came from being private secretary to Prince William. He had also been PPS to Theresa May.
Read more:
Analysis: After warning of tightened purse strings, the public may well be perplexed by Reeves
Starmer pays back £6,000 worth of gifts after weeks of freebies row
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
‘Donations not given out of altruism’
Rightly or wrongly, senior Labour figures felt he struggled to serve the new government. An unproven suspicion lingers on the Labour side that he may have been behind leaks damaging to Sue Gray.
The successful working of the UK’s constitutional machinery depends on an impartial cabinet secretary. His main job (so far they have all been men) is to ensure the civil service delivers the government’s programme effectively.
The cabinet secretary must also advise the prime minister whether their plans make sense, are acceptable and conform to expected ethical standards. In the perceptive TV comedy series Yes Prime Minister the catchphrase of cabinet secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby was: “Is that wise, prime minister?”
By the time they get the top job, most cabinet secretaries have worked for governments and ministers across the political spectrum. Sir Gus O’Donnell was a close adviser to John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In 2010 he oversaw the transition to what became the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition between David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
When Lord O’Donnell’s successor Sir Jeremy Heywood died prematurely of cancer in 2018 Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Theresa May led the official mourners. Sir Jeremy’s advice was hung on by successive prime ministers. If anything, he was too helpful and got too close. He and David Cameron were both keen to involve the disgraced former businessman Lex Greensill with government business.

Former chief Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins is Sue Gray’s top pick for cabinet secretary. Pic: Reuters
Past history and present tensions suggest that it would be a mistake to appoint Olly Robbins as the cabinet secretary. He is widely seen as Sue Gray’s preferred candidate. Downing Street might benefit from some creative tension. Besides, Robbins’ experience, including as a Brexit negotiator, is better suited to national security adviser.
Sir Keir has inherited a mess created by Rishi Sunak. In the dying days of the last government, Mr Sunak attempted to promote his national security council adviser, Tim Barrow, to US ambassador and to replace him with General Gwyn Jenkins. The Labour opposition cried foul successfully. As a result, both jobs and the people involved with them are now up in the air. A decision on the new Washington ambassador is due after the American election in November.
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈
Prime ministers who appoint friends and cronies exclusively as their key advisers tend to come a cropper, as the five recent Conservative leaders found out eventually. Far better to bring in someone of proven administrative expertise as cabinet secretary.
As usual, there are some highly rated senior male civil servants, with experience heading government departments, who could fill the role, led by Jeremy Pocklington, permanent secretary, or “perm sec”, at DESNZ, the energy department, and Sir Peter Schofield, department for work and pensions’ perm sec.
The new government has made much of having the first female chancellor of the exchequer. If Sir Keir fancies appointing the first woman cabinet secretary there is a rich and colourful field to choose from.
Sarah Healey, perm sec at DHCLG (communities) and formerly the culture department, is widely respected, as is Tamara Finkelstein at DEFRA. In Lady Finkelstein’s case, some in Labour might balk at handing the top job to the wife of Danny Finkelstein, the prominent Conservative peer and Times newspaper columnist.
Dame Antonia Romeo, currently in charge of the Ministry of Justice, has held a number of senior civil service jobs. During Liz Truss’s short-lived tenure, she was briefly appointed Treasury perm sec. Her earlier, high profile, high fashion, approach to being UK consul general in New York brought her into conflict with the British embassy in Washington DC.

Former John Lewis and Ofcom head Sharon White has ruled herself out by being on the selection panel. Pic: JLP
Former female civil servants who might want to return to government include Dame Melanie Dawes, currently cautiously low profile at the media regulator Ofcom, and Baroness Minouche Shafik, former perm sec at the department for international development and deputy governor of the Bank of England. She has just finished as president of Columbia University in New York City. Then there is Helen McNamara, who had a bruising time as deputy cabinet secretary during the COVID pandemic.
It is not yet known who of those above will put their names forward. One of the most widely tipped names is not applying. Sharon White, of John Lewis, Ofcom and the Treasury, could have been the first woman and the first black person to be cabinet secretary. She has decided to sit on the selection panel instead, alongside Gus O’Donnell.
The final choice of the next cabinet secretary will be made by the prime minister. The pressure is on Sir Keir to think out of his comfort zone if he is to be guided from the missteps of the first 100 days into four years of competent and ethical government.
You may like
Politics
Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter
Published
3 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
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.
Politics
‘Return hubs’ get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers
Published
7 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
“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
2:11
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.
Politics
The Lib Dems want to be the nice guys of politics – but is that what voters want?
Published
7 hours agoon
April 19, 2025By
admin
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
4:12
‘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
1:09
‘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
1:08
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.
Trending
-
Sports2 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years ago
Bank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway