Perhaps the Liberal Democrats don’t fit the conventional definition of a populist party. But that doesn’t mean they are immune to its methods.

The party often seems to operate beneath the surface of British politics. Many people struggle to identify precisely what it stands for, and perhaps with good reason. Its politics increasingly seem less about a coherent governing philosophy and more about responding to whatever happens to be popular at a given moment.

Take welfare. The Liberal Democrats opposed Labour’s Universal Credit and PIP Bill in July 2025, condemning the proposed cuts as unfair. Whilst indeed Ed Davey has acknowledged at various points that welfare spending is too high, when Labour attempted to address it through politically tricky cuts, the Liberal Democrats were quick to oppose. It is easy to acknowledge that something must be done. It is harder to explain what you are prepared to do about it.

What I find interesting is how much clearer the choice between the two main parties has become.

Andy Burnham represents a more traditionally interventionist Labour politics: more enthusiastic about public spending, nationalisation and closer European integration, and less inclined towards the tougher rhetoric on immigration and social policy that Kemi Badenoch has adopted. Badenoch, meanwhile, is making the case for a smaller state, a reduced welfare bill, tighter immigration controls and a more unapologetically Conservative approach to government.

I disagree profoundly with most of what Labour advocates. I genuinely believe another term of a Labour government would be incredibly damaging to this country. But I respect the willingness to make the case for a particular political philosophy. The differences between the parties are substantive, and increasingly difficult to mistake.

I think that is a healthy thing for democracy. Political parties should be making the case for competing visions of the country, not pretending that every difficult question can be resolved by blindly following what polls well.

The Conservatives should make the case for a smaller state, just as Labour should be entitled to make the case for a larger one. Both should have to defend their assumptions, explain their economics and take responsibility for the consequences.

For my part, I would like to see more Liberal Democrat voters recognise that the Conservative Party can offer an alternative: one prepared to confront the country’s economic problems, answer difficult questions and take a firmer approach to social issues, without embracing the ethno-nationalist politics found on parts of the right.

I think there is a question worth asking about what the Liberal Democrat’s offer beyond opposition to its political rivals. This isn’t about the party’s MPs, many of whom I think are respectable. The party also achieved some worthwhile things in coalition with the Conservatives. My criticism is directed at the brand under its current leadership.

I do not necessarily disagree with its criticisms of Reform or Trump, nor do I dismiss its arguments for closer European integration. Watching Ed Davey’s performances at Prime Minister’s Questions, I increasingly question whether there is much substance beyond reinforcing the moral and political identity of his own supporters.

Perhaps this is another form of populism, albeit a more respectable one. Rather than appealing to the people against an establishment, it appeals to people’s sense of being virtuous, with the right values and the right opinions. The approach is different, but the instinct to tell an audience what it wants to hear is remarkably similar.

I struggle to distinguish between their political argument and political performance. Politics ought to involve persuasion, consistency and, occasionally, telling people things they would rather not hear. Too often, the Liberal Democrats seem more interested in identifying the right villains and saying the right things than in making a difficult argument of their own.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not populist in any conventional ideological sense. But when a party so frequently condemns populism while relying so heavily on its techniques, the distinction deserves scrutiny. Moral binaries, emotional appeals and the constant identification of political enemies do not become any less populist simply because they are delivered in the language of liberalism.

Badenoch has been willing to defend positions that are unpopular with significant sections of the electorate, including her support for Brexit. Burnham, too, has shown a willingness to contemplate politically uncomfortable changes to the triple lock. One may agree or disagree with either, but governing requires something beyond the pursuit of applause.

Britain has serious structural problems: an unsustainable welfare bill, weak economic growth, public services under pressure and a state struggling to fund its commitments. None of these will be resolved by telling people what they want to hear. Addressing them means making difficult choices and being honest with the public about why they are necessary.

I am all for transcending political differences where doing so produces meaningful change. But there is a difference between pragmatism and simply chasing the polls. A political party should be prepared to lead the electorate, not just follow it.

The Liberal Democrats may be very good at being the nice party. They know how to identify the popular cause of the week, condemn the appropriate political villain and reassure their supporters that they are the ‘good guys’.

But being popular and being effective are two very different things. At a time when the country needs difficult answers, we need less of the former and more of the latter.