Write for us!
In the Lib Dems’ 35 year history, the ideological divisions that have emerged in the party have always, predictably, been along left-right economic fault lines, with Orange Bookers on the right and social democrats on the left. Meanwhile, social issues have been largely understood to be matters of conscience. The thread that knitted individuals together as a party was liberalism – a fundamental commitment to individual freedom tempered by an imperative to avoid harm.
A new division
Recently however, a liberal-authoritarian split has emerged. By way of a reminder, liberals are people who “are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable levels” and who “will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and (we) will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes.” We “believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people.”
Authoritarians, on the other hand, can be understood to resist freedom of information, make decisions without popular democratic engagement, and oppose free speech and free association.
Opposition to women’s rights is the new demarcation line
Nowhere is the liberal-authoritarian split more apparent in the Lib Dems than in the debate about trans vs women’s rights. Hostility to women even prompted James Belchamber to write an article for LibDem Voice in 2023 arguing that people who disagree with his view on the issue should get out of the party. “It’s time for gender critical people to leave”, was the headline. The comments in response overwhelmingly supported the author. However, a small number of voices cautiously expressed discomfort with Belchamber’s exhortation. Richard O’Neill wrote, “I’d say that was a test of liberalism. Strongly disagree with any discrimination. Yet the idea of punishing people for having the ‘wrong opinion’ has long been used as an anti-liberal mechanism to advance reactionary views. If liberals don’t believe and stand up for tolerance who will?” Well said, Richard!
David Evans, another dissenting liberal, appealed to our sense of humility, “Liberal Democracy is never easy, and when it comes to seeking ‘to balance the three fundamental values’ [of ‘liberty, equality and community’] in some areas it can get particularly thorny. However, can anyone of us honestly say we are paragons of virtue in every aspect of Liberal Democracy or do we all struggle to achieve the necessary balance so we actually can ‘build and safeguard a fair, free and open society’?”
Internal censorship already stifles debate in the party
The most obvious voices missing from the comments section under Belchamber’s article were the voices of gender critical members themselves. This is because Lib Dem Voice has a policy of routinely censoring anyone known to hold (and freely express) those beliefs.
For the benefit of those uninitiated in “the gender wars”, “gender critical” is the belief that there are two immutable human sexes and that sometimes sex matters in life. Many people are gender critical without even realising it because it is such an obvious belief to hold. If all “gender critical” members followed Belchamber’s instructions and quit the party there would not be much of a party left to fight elections with. Certainly, many blue envelopes would go unstuffed and many Foci undelivered.
LibDem Voice may be considered the vanguard in the party’s lurch towards authoritarianism. In January 2022 an article by John Grout appeared, entitled “The funny thing all those demanding ‘free speech’ have in common”. In a staggering rejection of the principles of free speech, Grout argued that if a “debate is so fundamental to people’s actual lives” that “it’s really not worth having”. Most liberals might consider that debates that fundamentally concern people’s lives are more important to have than any other type. Women who want to retain their existing rights would also prefer not to be debating the retention of the sex-based rights that they thought had been secured decades ago. But debate we must, because the alternative is to sit by quietly while our legal protections, services, spaces and sports are dismantled in front of our eyes.
Some readers may think following the Supreme Court judgment – that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex – we could all Move On. But as the government dithering on the EHRC guidance shows, many people are still far too afraid of this debate.
Ed Davey says he wants mature debate
In the wake of the Belchamber article, Lib Dem Voice did, to its credit, publish an article by Willie Rennie, in which he bravely argued that as a party we need to “Disagree Well”. Predictably his call was met with fierce resistance from those who would presumably prefer to continue disagreeing badly or existing in a blissful bubble of authoritarian acquiescence.
For free speech after all is the bedrock of social progress. From women’s suffrage to same sex marriage, after years, even centuries of disagreement these concepts eventually won out because their proponents had the right to argue for them. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects this fundamental right in our democracy: freedom of expression. As Liberals we value and cherish this right; we recognise that without freedom of expression there can be no democracy and no genuine, sustainable progress.
Dentons: “avoid excessive press coverage and exposure”
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, thrives in the shadows, when speech is restricted and criticism is criminalised. The now infamous “Denton’s Document” a trans campaigning guide put together by “the world’s biggest law firm”, is a textbook (pun intended) example of how authoritarian methods can be adapted to secure social change. Activists are advised to “avoid excessive press coverage”, to “tie your campaign to more popular reform” and “veil” the reform behind other legislation because gender recognition reform is “a more difficult issue to win public support for” and finally to “be wary of compromise.” In other words, avoid public scrutiny and debate, try to change legislation from the top down, and avoid allowing concerns to modify your ask.
The Dentons recommendations are the tip of the iceberg. Other strategies not recommended in the guide but frequently employed by trans activists are coercion, heckling, shaming, and instilling fear in opponents or would-be opponents. The proposed screening of the film, “Adult Human Female”, at Edinburgh University was cancelled twice because trans activist protestors bullied and intimidated arriving audience members to the extent that university authorities felt compelled to pull the event. Activists prevented freedom of assembly and they prevented free speech by cancelling a film that they were under no obligation to attend.
What is perhaps extraordinary is that so many of these attacks have occurred at universities, as Einstein said “The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think.” How can people achieve independent critical thought if they are only exposed to an approved set of ideas? Which should beg the question of any liberal, who gets to approve those ideas, who gets to challenge them and how are they enforcing them?
Non-binary choices
Belchamber’s LibDem Voice article appeared in the wake of the first constitutional amendment that the group Liberal Voice for Women, which I Chair, had tabled for debate. The amendment proposed that “non-binary” and the ability to “self-identify” your sex was removed from the sex-based quota category for men and women on internal committees to ensure the quotas were lawful under the Equality Act. Doing nothing, potentially opens up the party to discrimination claims. Everybody has a sex so everyone is included in the quota. Non-binary falls under a separate quota in our constitution already, so is effectively double counted as a characteristic at present. “Self-ID” into the opposite sex quota was ruled unlawful in 2022 and the Supreme Court Ruling in 2025 confirmed a Gender Recognition Certificate also does not allow people into a quota intended for the opposite sex. This led us to bring the constitutional amendment back again in Autumn 2025.
But the debates never happened because each time a motion to “move to next business” was proposed and carried by the transgender wing of the party. This meant that we never had the opportunity to make our case. Neither though did our detractors, who probably had submitted more speakers cards and would therefore have had more of the microphone had the debate gone ahead. To our surprise, even some MPs and the former President voted to shut down the debate. I was given two minutes to make the case each time for proceeding with the debate, during which time I was subjected to mindless heckling and abuse.
Will the last liberal in the party please turn out the lights?
So, the debates about Equality law were cancelled, but the story doesn’t end there. In the Conference Hall, many members were confused and disheartened by what they witnessed in 2023. Some felt moved to come and thank us for taking a stand and for, in one man’s words, “fighting for the soul of the party.” Some said they had wanted to see first-hand whether the debate in real life reflected that on social media; they found it to be even worse. Many went online to sign up to Liberal Voice for Women and LGB Liberal Forum websites.
In 2025 the debate captured significant media attention and eventually the Party obtained legal advice confirming what we had said all along – that the current quotas were not lawful.
Twice we tried to get the Party to see sense, twice we were smeared, abused, heckled and even opposed by Parliamentarians and senior leaders. When the former President was asked why he voted against the debate he used vague terms – he disagreed with the ‘wording’ and the ‘framing’ of our amendment. Of course, he chaired the Federal Board which could have brought its own amendment to rectify the unlawful quotas, but in the current climate of authoritarianism in the Party that would have required courage. Courage which has been desperately lacking.
Some party elders are not captured
At the 2023 fringe event on John Stuart Mill the speeches were excoriating, with party elders saying that the current Lib Dems were the most illiberal they had ever seen. One member who has been in the Party for over 50 years said he spent a few days contemplating whether he should leave his decades long political home on the say-so of Belchamber. Instead, he decided to stay and help fight back.
Ultimately, the party has a decision to make. Will it pursue “authoritarian progressivism” at all costs or stick with its stated purpose? Until now it is only the law of the land that has held it back from the former. The original version of the party’s Definition of Transphobia, which made any mention of conflicting interests between women and transwomen a disciplinary matter, had to be changed on the back of legal opinions which advised that it should be amended to make explicit that gender critical beliefs are protected by law and permissible in the party. Liberal Voice for Women only received permission to host conference stands and fringe events when a legal case was brought. The Party only began to listen on quotas when they obtained their own legal advice.
It seems only when the Party are cornered by the law that they have been willing to stand up to the authoritarian activists. This could rightly be seen as abdicating responsibility. Pointing at the piece of paper to say ‘sorry it’s not us, it’s the law’. It’s an expensive way to conduct these affairs both in terms of time and money but also reputationally on our liberal credentials.
If our liberal credentials can only be held together by the fear of adverse legal consequences, who is going to fly the flag for enlightenment values of freedom of speech and association in the world outside?
The party needs to put its tanks back on the lawn
The shutting down of the Adult Human Female documentary at Edinburgh University was rightly condemned by local Conservative MP Tess White. And from Scottish Lib Dems? Tumbleweed. Why are we letting the Conservatives, themselves no strangers to authoritarian tendencies when it comes to protests, to park their tanks on our freedom of speech lawn?
What will it take to restore a culture of and an institutional commitment to free speech, openness and intellectual pluralism in the Lib Dems? One thing it will take is members choosing to stand up and speak up for their principles. Because whilst the issue of sex and gender may not be of interest to everyone, the fundamental loss of liberty surely is. So now is the time to speak. If we allow insults and intimidation to silence us, this hands an incredible amount of power to people with their own agendas.
For if we don’t speak, we cannot understand each other’s viewpoints, and if we don’t speak, we cannot meaningfully resolve conflicts and finally if we don’t speak…
Are we even liberals at all?
Zoe’s speech to the Liberal Democrat Conference when she set out the case for allowing the debate to proceed in 2023:
And again in 2025:
