The Liberal Democrats Are No Friends of Liberty

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Liberal institutions in Britain no longer understand nor apply the basic principles of liberalism, as set out by its greatest proponents, such as J.S Mill. The public refuse to be fooled. Neither will they be silenced. They lack trust in the BBC, the Church, many universities and especially established political parties, including our own party, the Liberal Democrats. Instinctively, the public know that whatever ‘ism’ has captured these ruling hierarchies, it isn’t liberalism. And it doesn’t deliver free speech. 

As former Parliamentary candidates our separate, successful court cases against the Liberal Democrats, on grounds of serial admitted breaches of equality legislation, are signs the party has an endemic problem. 

Despite an unprecedented run of electoral breakthroughs for the Liberal Democrats, now with 72 MPs and running more local councils than the Conservatives, the party hierarchy shows no sign of regaining levels of national support once achieved by former popular leaders such as Charles Kennedy or Paddy Ashdown. A ‘strategy review’ is underway.

So, what has gone wrong for the Lib Dems? 

Some figures in the Parliamentary party blame insipid messaging – good on sewage and Europe but not cutting through on the top issues. Others like Tim Farron MP say the Lib Dems may attract far fewer members than the Greens and Reform, but these insurgent parties capture attention at the extremes of public opinion. By contrast, our party does the hard work of reason and competence at the centre ground of politics, which doesn’t get the same traction. 

But these assessments fail to explain the falling away of Lib Dem support in urban centres, especially in the north of England. Nor do they recognise it is the electoral system that is favouring the party in the south, because of the split between the parties of the Right. 

From our own experience of toxicity at the heart of the party, it seems the public detect that under the leadership of Sir Ed Davey MP, the Lib Dems are not quite what they claim to be. The party of claimed liberalism is ‘liberal-lite’. 

One key problem was identified by the last ‘strategy review’ led by Baroness Thornhill after the 2019 General Election but not acted upon. Her report warned that the Liberal Democrats “suffered from” questions about “the inherent risks of focusing on marginal issues, which are important to some, at the expense of everyday issues, which are important to many”.  

This being so, a revival of the party’s fortunes requires a return to first principles and an end to obsession about issues marginal to the public. The party is in silent denial about the legal cases it keeps losing, brought by its own activists and candidates on grounds of discrimination, harassment, victimisation and breach of contract. Huge sums in members’ money have been spent by an out-of-touch party leadership trying to defend the indefensible. 

Core party priorities are set out in the constitutional preamble: ”The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” 

Debauching ‘liberty’ into meaning the right to do what you want, regardless of the rights of others, has caused other ‘fundamental values’ to be diminished or forgotten. The party no longer seeks ‘balance’. As candidates, we refused to conform to groupthink. But we had to use the courts to secure redress because the Lib Dem hierarchy was incapable of upholding its own constitution, let alone the law, against the illiberals within.

Ordinary party members aren’t visible outside of local parties and leaflet delivering. But they must be as baffled as ordinary voters by confused party messaging, with gender ideology and US-style culture wars against women and Christians seemingly the foremost concerns of leading Lib Dems. 

Trans is the cause that trumps all other causes, especially when it comes to other protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act 2010. This could be linked to the disproportionate influence in the party of illiberals prominent in the Stonewall Trans advisory group, claiming ‘rights’ for men that the Supreme Court ruled have never been rights.

This is why we are seeing so many Lib Dems MPs support an Early Day Motion on the removal of the EHRC code on application of the Supreme Court ruling on sex. These politicians don’t seem to understand the law. Neither have we heard them state how they want to change it. They claim to accept the rule of law whilst undermining it. Their approach is giving ammunition to opponents of current rights-based protections, whether the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act or the Gender Recognition Act. 

So how has the party let the extremists rule the roost? And can true liberty be recovered? J.S. Mill‘s ‘Harm Principle’ that he sets out in On Liberty is a good place to start: individual freedom ends when harm is caused to others. 

The strength and sexual instincts of men over women have never been contradicted by thousands of years of evolution. If Mill and the science had been followed in 2017 – when the party was in the throes of the mantras ‘no debate’ and ‘trans women are women’ – then the sensible centre of the Liberal Democrats would never have been cowed into silence.

Natalie Bird’s case from 2017 is illustrative. It started when she challenged policy that transwomen must be allowed access to women’s spaces and refuges. For merely raising doubts, activists demanded then-party president Baroness Sal Brinton act to expel Natalie from the party. Instead of a fair and reasoned review, there was a ‘pile on’ by activists. Bullying was used to remove Natalie as chair of the party’s Radical Association. For speaking up, alone and ahead of everyone else within the party of ‘conscience’ and ‘nonconformity’, her political career was destroyed before it had even begun. 

Natalie was hounded and vilified by Lib Dem activists up and down the UK – individuals who had never met her in person but instead had formed opinions based on whispers by others. To complete the victimisation, after wearing a t-shirt to an internal party meeting with the words “Woman= Adult, Grown, Female”, Natalie was instantly suspended as Parliamentary candidate in Wakefield. When the decision was questioned and rights of appeal sought, she was told this wasn’t possible. Someone else stood in the 2019 General Election.

In the same election, former Labour MP and prominent Roman Catholic Rob Flello was deselected as Lib Dem PPC in Stoke for his Catholic beliefs on conscience matters. Internal documents he obtained through legal process revealed the chilling statement: you can be a member of the party and hold these beliefs but not be a Parliamentary candidate. 

Then at the last General Election in 2024, on the day that Rishi Sunak dissolved Parliament, David Campanale was replaced in the target seat of Sutton and Cheam in the west London Lib Dem heartland. He was deselected on grounds that activists disagreed with his Christian beliefs on non-whipped issues of conscience, despite his membership of the Church of England being known by the Sutton local party when members convincingly backed him to win the selection. 

David’s almost 100 complaints and requests for investigation about the now admitted discrimination and harassment were all ignored by party officers and panels. They endorsed the illegality instead of stepping in to stop it.

These cases and others all follow Tim Farron’s resignation as party leader in 2017, which he said was linked to opposition to his orthodox Christian views on conscience matters. 

Clearly, there is a problem with legal training at key levels of the party. But basic refusal to follow party policies, written procedures and the law indicate a culture of illiberalism. This is why an independent investigation is now required into the hidden ‘PCP’, the ‘Procedure, Criteria or Practice’ that’s been at work in the party for many years and which accounts for the unlawful discrimination against members with protected beliefs.  

The investigation must start with a review of not just the Sutton local party, which so seriously broke the law in its treatment of David Campanale, but also how the London Region and English state parties each came to admit breaking the law as well. The lawyer at the EHRC responsible for David’s case file told his legal team his was the “worst case of religious discrimination they’d ever seen in a political party”.  

How did the party of liberalism give rise to this shocking indictment?

The gravity and cost of this systemic problem can be ignored no longer. But the need for accountability and change in party culture, especially at leadership level, is not a threat to the Liberal Democrats. It’s an essential opportunity to win back the trust of the British public. Review followed by reform and a focus away from marginal matters could and should re-position the party as the sensible, centrist offer the electorate is crying out for. 

Natalie Bird and David Campanale are former Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidates. Assessment of the damages the party must pay Campanale starts in the Central London county court on June 29th. More information here.