Reform UK, the Liberal Democrats, and the Fight for Power

Image - Jacob Diehl

‍

British politics has become increasingly shaped by the twin forces of populism and tactical centrism. In this context, the Reform Party and the Liberal Democrats represent two strikingly different responses to the electorate’s disillusionment with the political establishment. The media’s portrayal of both parties, combined with the leadership styles at their helm and the manifestos they craft, underscores the tension between two competing visions of Britain’s political future.

‍

Since the 2024 election, tensions have been high between both the Reform and Liberal Democrat parties. Due to the first-past-the-post voting system, the July election saw Reform UK capture 14.3% of the vote but only 5 seats, and the Liberal Democrats 72 despite lower vote share than Reform UK. From then onwards, the two parties have fought for support, grasping at those who have lost faith and following from the now less popular Conservative and Labour governments. 

‍

Leadership has played a great factor in this, crystallising both public support and party reputation. These identities, however, have been orchestrated in starkly different ways, with Nigel Farage’s personal diplomacy much more confrontational than that of Ed Davey. Farage operates an unconventional approach to leadership, cultivating a personal brand rather than an institutional one. As opposed to confronting issues in Westminster, he responds to - and even incites - pressure in public life. By relentlessly shaping the national conversation, he forces larger parties to react, as seen in the Brexit saga when his rhetoric pulled both the Conservatives and Labour towards harder stances on Europe. His personal diplomacy strays from commonplace practices, using magnetism and media clout to disrupt political orthodoxies.

‍

In contrast, Ed Davey cultivates a more cautious and empathetic personality, blurring the community with political seriousness as opposed to practicing the same populist showmanship as Farage. His diplomacy rests on building trust, especially in constituencies where the Liberal Democrats rely on tactical voting. His campaign stunts - often light-hearted or quirky - signal accessibility rather than raw populist energy, projecting human warmth over ideological zeal. This mode of politics is less about bending national debates and more about patient coalition-building, whether in local councils or parliamentary marginals. He, in turn, represents patience, seeking incremental reform through persuasion, empathy, and pragmatism. Whilst both conflating forms of publicity and interpersonal diplomacy have their own strengths, they are not without risks. Farage can alienate moderates with uncompromising rhetoric, while Davey risks national invisibility in a media environment dominated by sharper personalities.

‍

Underscoring inter-party tensions, three months ago the Liberal Democrats set up an internal “Reform Watch” system to monitor how the Party operates, as people are becoming increasingly worried about the threat Reform poses to both the communities and the public services we all rely on. The situation has become gradually precarious as Farage has underlined that Reform wants to do to our councils what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing to America. Davey aims to present his party as “the antidote to Reform”, stating that “from what I can see, we’re the only party who seem to be up for that [taking on Reform UK]. The others seem to be a bit afraid of them”.

‍

The problem for the Lib Dems is that they have in effect a 100–500 strategy. In 100 seats they are competitive. In 500 seats, however, they hold less than 10% of the vote, and it is mostly in these 500 seats where Reform is strongest. In many ways, therefore, we are watching a populist right-wing movement that is avowedly anti-Liberal, and one which the Lib Dems are unequipped to contest. What also proves problematic is the national conversation; Reform, quite simply, are polling well. The number of attendees at their rallies range in the early thousands, with the most action/ turnout on matters of immigration. 

‍

Reform is also the most followed party on TikTok, engaging younger audiences and boasting a following of over 439,000. Whilst this indicated a mass following and support base, most of these followers are men, and the party itself lacks female representation. This translates into the composition of the party as well as its follower base, with Pochin, Reform's first female MP, using her first question in parliament to the prime minister to ask if he would ban the burka—something that isn’t Reform policy, but which she says was “punchy” to “get the attention to start the debate.” Quite simply, when Farage put his hat in the electoral ring, diversity was not high on his agenda.

‍

In contrast to Reform’s “punchy” statements and agenda, a distinct form of dissatisfaction is channelled by the Liberal Democrats. Their appeal lies more in real governance - better healthcare spending, climate action, and a more equitable voting system - than in cultural identity. Nigel Farage’s calculated provocations on immigration, cultural identity, or taxation are engineered to dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Whether the response is critical or inspired, the coverage amplifies its message, creating an aura of disruption that suits its insurgent brand. The party seems to thrive on controversy.

‍

The Liberal Democrats face a subtler challenge in media coverage. While the party has a loyal base of sympathetic journalists, mainstream outlets often consign them to the margins, treating them as little more than tactical spoilers in tight constituencies.  One Lib Dem MP said anonymously: “We do need to up our game with social media. Yes, we still need leaflets and canvassing, but the world’s moved on. If Reform and Farage are shaping the narrative online, we need to be there too.”

‍

Yet, during general elections, the media briefly returns to the Lib Dems, particularly when their manifesto pledges contrast sharply with the austerity-driven narratives of the main parties. The result is a divergence in perception: Reform as the insurgent headline-grabber, the Lib Dems as the perennial “third force” trying to reassert relevance in a polarised landscape. While they have built a strong local base, this does not always translate into national recognition or influence in Westminster. This asymmetry fuels the tension: Reform grabs disproportionate visibility with a relatively narrow policy agenda, while the Lib Dems struggle to project their wider programmatic platform onto the national stage.

‍

So - what might the future of these two parties look like? Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will once again enter a coalition, as they did in 2010, leveraging their steady pragmatism to temper the excesses of a larger party. That would risk repeating the compromises that damaged their reputation last time, but it might also give them national influence they cannot achieve alone. Alternatively, they could sharpen their centrist appeal into something more radical, positioning themselves as the party of electoral reform, green investment, and civil liberty at a time when the two larger parties remain risk-averse. Reform faces a different challenge: whether it can turn insurgency into permanence. The party’s appeal rests heavily on Nigel Farage’s charisma, and its lack of diversity and policy breadth could hinder its ability to mature into a lasting parliamentary force. If it succeeds, it could permanently redraw the right of British politics, pushing the Conservatives further into populist territory and creating a new fault line in the political landscape.

‍

What unites both stories is that neither party can remain what it currently is. The Liberal Democrats cannot survive on local victories and tactical votes alone, and Reform cannot remain an endless protest movement without building the institutions and breadth required for national power. Britain stands at a crossroads between rupture and reform, between the short sharp shock of populist rage and the slow patience of centrist compromise. The answer will not only decide the fate of the Lib Dems and Reform, but shape the direction of the country for a generation.