Should you vote Liberal?

I'm with you MOnica. Apart from the 2015 GE, I've always voted LD (and Liberal before that), because I'm liberal (with a small l) to the core and believe in their values. My vote has never mattered, by I suppose there's a little satisfaction from knowing that the total figures would have been one less, if I hadn't voted.

PS. That's why I chuckle to myself when posters, some of whom appear before every election on sites such as GN, accuse me of being a hard-line leftwinger or Corbynite.

I could be persuaded to vote Labour or Green, if a tactical vote mattered, because there's an overlap between LD and some Green and Labour policies.

The mayor of Manchester could make a difference, because Manchester has devolved funding. Of course, Burnham needs to fight his case, to make sure the formula for funding is fair and doesn't just shift the blame to him, if things go wrong.

He's already getting criticism for being a "Blairite" and caring only for his own career - and, of course, for being a Scouser!

I hope he does a good job, because I'm very fond of Manchester - the home of liberalism in the UK .

No, but it just seems strange that the Libdem amount is the same as the amount that Andy Burnham is in charge of just for the Manchester area, just for the health and social care bit of his budget.
It doesn't add up.
An extra six billion for 66 million population is less than £100 per person for the whole of the health and social care budget. I think it's in a bigger mess than that.

The figure is just a coincidence.

I agree that £6bn is only a start, but it would represent approximately a 5% increase.

I'm not sure what the population of Greater Manchester is, but it's something just less than three million, which is approximately 5% of the population of the UK. That's probably why the figures are the same.

An interesting article here about Andy Burnham.

theconversation.com/why-andy-burnhams-manchester-could-change-the-face-of-uk-politics-77258

It's too early to know what Burnham will do in Manchester. It has a diverse population with more people than some small countries. It's not going to be a job for the faint-hearted, but it would be good to see Manchester as genuine competition for London.

PS. The People's History Museum in Manchester is worth visiting.

It has been said that he will start on Monday to do something about homelessness in Manchester. That will be brilliant.

While we are talking about Burnham,

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/06/andy-burnham-denies-jeremy-corbyn-snub-manchester-rally

I think the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I guess it's something to keep the gossip mongers occupied.

It's a plum job for Burnham. Manchester is a great city - mainly Remain and very Labour. I hope he makes it greater.

GGMk2, the first election I voted in was in 1966. I voted Liberal in that election and have voted Liberal ever since, although not without considering all the alternatives each time and coming close to voting for one of them several times.

I joined the Liberal party in 1962 during my first year at university.

Thanks M0nica - your have certainly hung in there. I do feel the Social Democracy part of the Lib Dems is coming through a little more (well it suits me a little more) and they did a lot to hold back the worst of the Cons when in government with them.

After living abroad we returned to the UK in the 1970s and moved to an area which was totally dominated by the Conservatives, who controlled every council and where anybody wearing a blue rosette could easily get elected to parliament.

The only party making any effort to challenge the Tories was the Liberal party. My husband had always been a Liberal but I had previously voted Labour. The Labour party was virtually non existant here so it was obvious to me that I should support the Liberals.

When the SDP was founded we met the local members with whom we formed an alliance before the parties merged to form the Liberal Democrats. I thought that the SDP members we met seemed to have just taken a bit longer than us to have reached the same conclusion. I voted SDP and we were very active in supporting the SDP candidate, although he was not elected. After a lot of success at council level we finally got our LibDem MP elected and re-elected several times until the disaster of 2010.

When I was telling ar the eldction on Thursday, I chatted to the Tory teller, an elderly gent, who told me that he thought the Liberal Democrats had put country before party when they went into the coalition and he fdlt so ashamed of the waythe Conservatives in 2015 that he had actually written a letter of apology to Nick Clegg. This old chap was obviously a decent fellow, but unfortunately still a Tory.

The disastrous election was as I should have said 2015, not 2010. I must use preview, sorry.

What a lovely man he sounds Varian. I was watching Nick Clegg's 2 May speech earlier and he is still so interesting and, dare I say, inspiring.

I was a founder member of the SDP (as was my father although neither of us knew the other had joined until the first meeting). I was part of the Steering Committee in our area and people had come from all sorts of political backgrounds and none. I found I could not join the amalgamated Lib Dems but I am still most comfortable with the politics in that area.

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/attlees-granddaughter-jo-roundell-greene-runs-lib-dem-candidate-can-offer-strong-opposition/

"At a packed meeting in Farncombe today, 6th May 2017, organised by SW Surrey Compass group it was overwhelmingly agreed that there should be one progressive alliance candidate for SW Surrey in the coming general election, in order to have the best chance of unseating Jeremy Hunt. The meeting was attended by people from the 4 progressive parties: Liberal Democrats, Labour Party, Greens and National Health Action Party, as well as many non party aligned people.

The meeting overwhelming supported Dr Louise Irvine of the National Health Action Party to be the candidate.

The Green Party has declared they would stand down in favour of Louise as a progressive alliance candidate. Local Labour Party members and several Liberal Democrat members have said they will campaign for Louise as part of that alliance. It is now hoped that the Liberal Democat and Labour Parties nationally will agree to withdraw their candidates so there is just one candidate."

I am sorry but I am appalled by the idea of a progressive alliance. The Labour, Lib Dems and Green parties are three distinct parties with distinct policies and underlying philosophies.

If they are not separate parties with separate agendas, why do they exist? They might as well amalgamate into one party with one policy and give us an honest choice of what their united policy is. If the Lib Dem in my constituency was to stand down in favour of a Labour or Green party candidate, I would not vote for candidates for either of those parties. If necessary I would just spoil my ballot paper and probably resign my Lib Dem party membership.

I think a Progressive Alliance would be a disaster because I think the media would lambast it, and many of the electorate would treat with contempt parties that were so wishy washy in their allegiance they would stand down for another party with whom they share a few policies.

Co-operation between parties on an issue by issue basis once in Parliament is one thing, but having MPs voted on the basis that they deliberately restricted the elctorate's choice by choosing not to stand in some constituencies is a manipulation of the electorate and is anti-democratic.

But the membership in SW Surrey decided on that strategy in their constituency. Are they not allowed to?
It happens all the time with the Green Party. They do not have the finances to put a candidate in every constituency, so they choose those where they stand a chance.

What do you think about the Tory candidate for metro mayor in the West Midlands, Andy Street, being able to spend nearly a million pounds on the election before the cut off date? Ex head of John Lewis buys his position.
That's going back well over a century in politics.

www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/the-progressive-alliance-why-the-liberal-democrats-need-it/

No party has to put a candidate up in every constituency and, as you say some cannot because of the cost.

However to deliberately withdraw from a constituency and tell your members who to vote for in your place is one step further, and I, for one, am not prepared to do that.

If SW Surrey chooses to do so that is their business. I do not live in that constituency. But if I did, I would not vote for the candidate just because I was told my party's candidate had decided not to stand and I should vote for a named individual of another party in their place.

I think the whole subject of election expenses is due for revue. Now we are having so many of these presidential style elections for various posts, from Police Commissioners to Mayors, where decisions on candidates are made a year or more in advance and that person is campaigning from that point, much tighter regulations must come in

But to be honest I really cannot see any connection between my original email, your reply and the non-sequitor on mayoral election costs added on to your emaail. Were you out to catch me out on some point or another, although I cannot see how you could have been.

No party has to put a candidate up in every constituency and, as you say some cannot because of the cost.

However to deliberately withdraw from a constituency and tell your members who to vote for in your place is one step further, and I, for one, am not prepared to do that.

If SW Surrey chooses to do so that is their business. I do not live in that constituency. But if I did, I would not vote for the candidate just because I was told my party's candidate had decided not to stand and I should vote for a named individual of another party in their place.

I think the whole subject of election expenses is due for revue. Now we are having so many of these presidential style elections for various posts, from Police Commissioners to Mayors, where decisions on candidates are made a year or more in advance and that person is campaigning from that point, much tighter regulations must come in

But to be honest I really cannot see any connection between my original email, your reply and the non-sequitor on mayoral election costs added on to your email. Were you out to catch me out on some point or another, although I cannot see how you could have been.

Why would I have been trying to catch you out?

To me, it does seem to follow on that there are only two parties that can afford to have candidates in each constituency.
There is nothing wrong in my eyes with parties telling their followers who they think they should vote for.
Everybody does it.
You don't suggest to your supporters that they should not vote. That would be ridiculous.

Anyway, I really would like to know what anyone thinks of the idea of a candidate being able to spend more money on a campaign than most people could earn in a lifetime of working for him?

Can I ask this question that has not been answered on another thread. I am I tiguedby the Lib Dem position over the years.

It is often said that the EU Referendum should never have happened, Brexit is all the fault of the Tories and David Cameron, we wouldn't be in this mess if the referendum had not taken place. Then you have the voices that demand a Referendum on a Referendum.

When did the Liberal Democrats have a change of heart as to holding an EU Referendum???

I find the ease with which some posters so easily forget that at one time or another in the past Labour / Lib Dems / Conservatives have ALL wanted an EU Referendum.

Who remembers Ed Davey arguing in Parliament for a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty, boy he and the Lib Dems were very angry.

www.libdemvoice.org/newsflash-lib-dems-walk-out-of-house-of-commons-2233.html

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7265516.stm

"Lib Dem ordered out of EU debate

Lib Dem front bencher Edward Davey has been ordered out of the Commons, after angry protests to the deputy speaker.
Mr Davey was annoyed at the decision not to allow MPs to debate and vote on a Lib Dem call for a referendum to be held on the UK's membership of the EU.

Deputy Speaker Sir Michael Lord acted after Mr Davey defied warnings. Fellow Lib Dems then walked out in support.

The Lib Dems support the EU treaty and UK membership of the EU. They oppose a referendum on the treaty itself.

The protest came as MPs began the latest day of debate on the Lisbon Treaty - something the Conservatives, some Labour and some Lib Dem MPs have said should be subject to a referendum.

Points of order

The Lib Dem leadership, who say they would not vote for such a referendum, say the whole issue of Britain's membership of the European Union should be subject of a referendum instead."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15390884

BBC Link above is a Time Line of when Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems have called for EU Referendums.

So when, why , what changed the Liberal Democrats stance over wanting an EU Referendum which let's face it this General Election is mostly about?

This general election is about much more than that.
It's about who rules this countrey for the next five years, about what happens to the NHS, benefits, taxes, poverty, homelessness.

Best comment I have read so far today has been

"You can have the Tories or the NHS. You can't have both."
It's up to us to choose that sort of question on 8th June, too.

The LibDems have announced policy of putting up income tax to save the NHS.