Lib Dem leader Ed Davey sparks fury among his MPs after hinting he would do post-election deal with Tories
Sir Ed Davey has provoked anger among Liberal Democrat MPs after appearing to signal he could strike a post-election deal with the Conservatives. The Lib Dem leader suggested last week that he agreed with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch's assessment that no party is likely to win a Commons majority at the next General Election, prompting speculation about another coalition arrangement to block Reform UK from power. Several MPs have reacted with dismay, warning that the party has only just recovered from the political damage caused by its previous coalition with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, Davey, who served as a Cabinet minister during the 2010-15 coalition, said he was "the party leader with most experience of how you manage that situation." He later attempted to row back on X, saying it made "zero sense" to help either the Conservatives or Reform into power, but one Lib Dem MP told The Mail on Sunday he had "clearly" floated the idea of a fresh pact. The row comes as Prime Minister Andy Burnham faces separate accusations of stage-managing cross-party social care talks, after giving the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats just 18 hours' notice of a tripartite meeting.
- Ed Davey hints at possible post-election Tory coalition deal
- Lib Dem MPs furious, citing damage from 2010-15 coalition
- Separate row over Andy Burnham's rushed social care talks
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of Sir Ed Davey's openness argue he is simply being honest about parliamentary arithmetic: with polls suggesting no single party will win a majority, a leader who refuses to discuss how he might handle that scenario is being evasive rather than principled. Davey's supporters would say his 2010-15 Cabinet experience gives him a rare, practical understanding of how coalition negotiations actually work, and that stating a willingness to talk is not the same as abandoning Liberal Democrat values. In a Parliament where Reform UK could hold significant sway, they argue it is responsible statesmanship to keep options open to prevent a more radical or unstable government, rather than ruling out cooperation on ideological grounds before voters have even gone to the polls.
The case against
Critics within the party would counter that the 2010-15 coalition inflicted severe and lasting damage, reducing the Liberal Democrats to a handful of MPs, and that it took the best part of a decade to rebuild trust with voters who felt betrayed on tuition fees and other pledges. From this view, even hinting at a fresh pact with the Conservatives risks reopening that wound and blurring the distinct identity the party has painstakingly rebuilt as a party of the centre ground, independent of both Tory and Reform politics. They would also argue that floating coalition scenarios so far ahead of an election is tactically naive, handing opponents a stick to beat the party with and undermining its negotiating position and message discipline long before any results are known.