I think that “whatever reason” in this case is that the British press is mostly Tory supporting and basically lied to the public about the coalition. The Lib Dem’s did get elements of their manifesto enacted, we were just told they didn’t and a lot of people believe that.
I was a student who voted for them and didn’t feel betrayed. I understand that you have to horse trade in a coalition and they went hard on electoral reform. Given that the tories were voted in on austerity, tuition fees was always going to be a policy that they’d either refuse outright or demand huge concessions for.
Hmmm.
They went for the weakest possible form of electoral reform, and, crucially the Tories were not bound to support it so they got nowhere.
The Tories were not voted in on austerity : [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-at-a-glance](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-at-a-glance)
And shifting student debt from public to private just meant higher interest bills. You could imagine that the 'scrap tuition fees' pledge would be lost, but tripling tuition fees was ridiculous.
Yeah they had to compromise on it as well, it doesn’t mean they didn’t chalk up some wins which are never mentioned.
Don’t care what one summary of their manifesto says, huge amounts of the rhetoric around them was about austerity, it was a huge issue.
The review that the tories bandied around to justify the increase recommended removing the cap altogether. We will never know the details of what was traded but it seems eminently possible that the only reason we have a cap is Lib Dem horse trading.
Did they though?
What exactly would have happened if they had declared it a red line issue and threatened to bring down the government if it was not enacted?
Bearing in mind that we have a more recent example of the DUP exerting wildly disproportionate influence over the Conservative government with no more leverage than the Lib Dem’s had when they were literally part of the government.
> The Tories were not voted in on austerity :
Literally the first line
>> Emergency budget within 50 days of election to include immediate £6bn cut in wasteful spending and one-year freeze on public sector pay in 2011
I was about to become a student and did feel betrayed, as did many of my classmates etc at the time. Perhaps thats naive, but 18 year olds aren't well known for their life experience.
It very much soured the party and that can take a long time to recover from.
Yeah I agree it did sour the party but I think that’s largely because they didn’t get any credit for anything they did get through because they were massively unfairly treated by the press. Whatever they traded away, it’s the only thing the press would have covered.
Yeah, I've heard that since. Unfortunately for me, Cleggs most important campaign point was 'no tuition fee rises' and then it went from 3k a year debt to 9k a year debt overnight, in a system where almost all roles now seem to insist on having a degree.
I feel like we'd have been better off with a system that limited fee increases on key subjects the country required more of, but allowed increases on subjects we didn't, but I'm no expert.
I was so concerned about the debt that I never went to university, and I likely lay some of that at the Lib Dems feet.
When this got raised in the debate i was like.. Why isn't the lib dem response this: "well, we trusted the Tories would honor our agreement and look what happened, You've all made the same mistake when you voted in boris..."
TIL it's more complicated than that...
The Tories being the senior party forced the Lib Dems to have to make choices which parts of their manifesto could be realised. Raising Income Tax threshold, Pupil Premium, Pension Reform, Green Investment Bank, fixed-term parliaments, Alternative Vote (AV) system for electing MP's (this failed alongside reforming house of lords also failed), and some changes to Civil Liberties and Human Rights were all on the cards as more feasible policies to realise than scrapping tuition fees.
Tories gave LD's a choice about what was economically feasible, and scrapping tuition fees sounded like it wasn't viable over other areas? That's quite tricky to discuss in a short sound bite...
Same here, but they get some of it in my mind, whether thats fair or not.
Probably because of things like this: [https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nick\_clegg\_tuitionfees.jpg](https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nick_clegg_tuitionfees.jpg)
That promise was predicated upon them getting a majority (which was never going to happen), and therefore as soon as they went into coalition that manifesto promise becomes null and void; we were operating under the Tory manifesto, and Clegg got to do his ‘Ted’, to Cameron’s ‘Ralph’ (*Fast Show* reference, kids), with Ted tasked to just fix the fence in the cow field and mow the lawns while Ralph got to jolly about in his new brogues.
Destroy the economy, throw away our international influence and soft power, fumble pandemic response, allow public services to collapse, let inflation get out of control, ignore the housing crisis, talk endlessly about illegal immigration but do nothing to stop it, raise taxes to the highest in generations.
"But muh tuition fees 15 years ago!!!!"
Tories legit get a free pass every 10 years for all past indiscretions.
These arseholes are Teflon, it's like the entire country gets neuralized and votes them back in and then blame the previous party for all shit they do for the next term.
The UK Electorate has done a remarkable job at holding the Lib Dems to account for entering a coalition with the Tories and breaking their promises a decade ago.
It doesn't care all too much about the actual Tories, though.
So given that, in a coalition, you do not get to enact 100% of your manifesto because why on earth would you, which elements would they have had to drop and which would they have had to keep for you to have been happy?
Lib Dem now but when the tuition fees thing happened I had until recently been voting for Labour - aka the Iraq war party. The Tories meanwhile are the austerity and Brexit party so on balance the crimes of the Lib Dems (not being able to get tuition fees through in coalition) seem pretty insignificant.
They went hard on two things: reform of the voting system and university fees. They got into coalition with the Tory's who gave them the shittest possible voting reform (which their media friends then caused to bomb) and got them to compromise on university fees (which their media friends then used to cause the lib dems to bomb).
They basically got played by the Tories, who promptly kicked them out at the next election and caused the whole country to bomb.
You mean like when a certain war criminal lied to get us involved in a war that killed millions?
Shame that Blair was a junior partner in that coalition that didn't exist too
I never understand this mentality. I literally went to University when the first year the fees rose. It’s naive of any of us to think they held much sway in that government, Nick Clegg likewise was a weak leader and got demolished rightfully in the next election.
But in retrospect, it’s really not worth ignoring them now, especially if you like their policies. The fee rise has little to no consequence on my life, or anyone’s. It’s effectively a student tax.
If a party offers progressive ideas and policies, that’s what I’ll vote for and currently this manifesto ticks the right boxes for me - a guy in 45k+ debt to the student finance company 👍
Doesn't matter there is now a major political party talking about rejoining the single market
UKIP managed to bring about brexit in the first place and I can count on one hand the number of MPs they have had.
Lib Dems taking this stance could put pressure on Labour in future general elections.
the prediction was that brexit and anything around that would not be mentioned in this election, Lib Dems have changed that.
Yeah I have always voted Lib Dems, this was going to be my first time voting Labour, purely just to help the pendulum swing as far as it can away from the Conservatives. This announcement by the Lib Dems has me questioning that... plus I live in a Labour safe seat anyway...
Yep. Exactly my thinking. As long as the Conservatives lose: if the Labour are set to be a massive majority then my interests are in making it a slightly smaller majority by bolstering smaller parties like the Greens and Lib Dems. I want the Tories out, but I am by no means a fan of those two party stranglehold. So, whichever small party best aligns with issues I care about will be the one to win my vote, this announcement helped.
Hate FPTP so much.
I'd love to vote Lib Dem but I think my constituency is currently neck and neck between Tories and Labour and I have to vote Labour tactically.
FPTP is so patently an absurd system in the modern world where standard "left/right" responses don't have the nuance required to find solutions to combinations of problems.
With luck, the fact that the Tories are going to be a small party with no influence (or way of attracting donors to buy said influence) may make some of them (and their influential media supporters) rethink their opposition to electoral reform - At least if it's looking like a long term in the wilderness.
Not for the benefit of anyone but themselves obviously, but if it's at least discussed more that may be a benefit. Obviously they'd plan to drop it the second it didn't help them any more, but it might be harder to reverse once the bandwagon is started.
Same, labour safe seat. Was considering greens but I haven't seen enough of them yet to know what to do. This is a strong pull for me to be lib dem though, I might become a single issue voter for a while if there's a party opting to rejoin the single market in some way.
I hate this seemingly new fangled idea that politics is all or nothing.
Lib Dem’s have never had a majority, and Ed has said multiple times they don’t expect it, he just wants to talk about Lib Dem policies getting made, but they can be one of two things:
A play maker. They’ve been this multiple times. Slim majorities or hung parliaments mean they can get certain things on the table.
Secondly, arguably more importantly, a litmus test of what is popular. They have a few, very specific policies, including this one. Labour could lose an election on this subject, Lib Dem’s can only gain. Should they gain enough, it means this issue is then on the table for the two major parties.
I don't think he is tbh. I think there are a lot of better candidates than him (and I don't mean ones who'll magically fix everything but ones who will slow the rate it gets worse), but I think they all recognise it doesn't matter who is in charge. Tories cannot win the next election. The best they can hope for is Labour doesn't get a full majority and has to lead a coalition.
If you know that, you don't want to be in the front seat of the Tory party. Especially after last election was pretty good for you. Let someone else take the fall, wait until people inevitably forget how bad your years in power were, then lead the attempted comeback.
Yeah, there's definitely signs within the Party that they think they'll be in in Opposition, and that's been the case for ... a while now. So a bunch of prime contenders have been rather quiet, and are _maybe_ going to go for Leader of the Opposition to get a run up to the next election, rather than wanting to be the Leader that Loses the Election.
I think Sunak has figured that out, which is why he pulled the trigger - he doesn't actually have to do the job, and he's got no reason to care, so may as well sod off and have a nice summer in California.
Lib dem manifesto pledges to let Ed Davey have as much fun as possible in the lead up to the election. Today he’s going on all of the rollercoasters and then he’s going to play a game of giant kerplunk
I remember seeing the picture of him just after the crash. He looked like a swollen up red frog. It was only later that I realised this was his usual appearance
16 million remain votes, 48% of the electorate they stand every chance, they stood every chance in 2019 too but people are so tunnel visioned when it comes to GEs
Will be good to get it I to the political discourse. I'm hoping labour will do this, not in one big deal but industry by industry do deals to bring it back
If they want to get the economy going I can't think of anything cheaper and better
There's a non zero chance that they will he the official opposition. Depends on how badly Sunaks campaign goes and how much damage reform do to the tories (it will be a lot of damage, but it could be fatal)
That's how politics works. You set your goal and almost always settle for somewhere short of it. That's what the problem is with centrism, they set their goals where they should end up and then end up compromising further on it and wonder why no one is happy. Starmer should be making bold promises, and compromise down to something good. Instead he's promising good and will likely end up negotiating down on it.
It's negotiations 101, don't start out with the price you will be happy with at the end of the negotiation.
I think their message is all wrong.
They are still saying they are best placed to oust Tories in certain seats. That ship has long gone. They should be campaigning on keeping Labour in check. Opposition parties play an important role. Noone should want a 400 seat party in government
We need two elections. This first election needs to be about destroying the tory party. Making them seem like a 3rd party that is no longer viable to vote for. Then we need another election where Labour contest Lib Dem and sadly reform UK directly.
[https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction\_main.html](https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html)
Granted not Reform 3rd, don't know where that's come from.
Frighteningly, you are right and the source backs you up (scroll down to the graph)
Personally, I don't know how anyone can vote for the ~~Brexit~~ Reform Party, given their, and Farages awful track record.
Awful, terrible, worst policies in our country's history level takes, such as:
- Vladimir Putin was justified invading Ukraine
- "Climate change has happened for millions of years... We are better to adapt to warming, rather than pretending we can stop it"
- Insurance based healthcare schemes
- Brexit
What reality are these folks living in?!
>Personally, I don't know how anyone can vote for the Brexit Reform Party, given their, and Farages awful track record.
That's because labour and conservatives have proven to have terrible track records also ,I think some people are just sick of the same two parties,voting reform is a middle finger to the top two parties
I agree. You'd like to think that if folks wanted to stick it to the two parties, they'd choose the one that is offering to fix their embarrassing mistakes, rather than just a worse version of the Tories.
When their members can't stop spewing vile and downright Nazi sympathies, a person must have a few screws loose if they want to vote Reform. Just look at this cunt Reform candidate saying we should've been neutral with the Nazi's and these whacko statements are coming up regularly:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
I do agree with Reform's point about climate change, but for a different reason.
Yes, I do think we're better off adapting to it at this point. That's because I personally think that we've already pushed the climate beyond the point of no return. All we can do now is mitigate the damage we've caused, and there isn't any stopping it now.
That is a defeatist thought, and actually, it can get a lot worse than it already is if we don't slam the brakes on pretty soon.
A huge percentage of their donations are from oil and gas investors. Their aim could not be more apparent. Keep oil flowing no matter the expense.
And every investment we make into more sustainable energy now will give us vital lifelines, not just with abundant energy, but also can remove reliance on foreign oil and gas imports by making them secondary resources.
If you think of it like this: 10-15% (aka, 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 people) are racist nutjobs... does that not make sense to you? It would certainly reflect my view of the people I know and have known across my various avenues of life.
They do tend to cluster together though. I know a lot of people who would almost never cross paths with those I consider 'racist nutjobs'. The racist nutjobs cluster at the top and bottom of the socio-economic spectrum, with a light smattering across the middle class - in my experience.
I'm glad they now have their own party, as historically they were just boosting the conservatives, along with the old people who spent the last decade assuming the Tories were the same as they were back in 1970.
https://news.sky.com/story/election-latest-d-day-blunder-hasnt-lost-election-minister-insists-tories-vow-to-scrap-ulez-expansion-12593360?postid=7797026#liveblog-body
It was on this sub today but I can't link to the thread.
Yes it's total vote rather than seats but given you're making up a new election process I think that's reasonable to say reform are 3rd.
In vote share but not in seats. Currently Labour 1st, Conservatives 2nd and Lib Dems for 3rd in seats. And polls are showing that if the Tories do poorly and the Lib Dems do well the Lib Dems could overtake the Tories and come 2nd. The problem with this election is that more than 100 seats are expected to be very close which makes a precise prediction difficult.
I just want to get rid of as many Tories as possible.
[StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
We just really need proportional representation. I don't imagine Labour will do it, which is a shame as their primary goal should be to stop the Tories ever having unfettered power again.
Not for this election, IMO - the issue with the Lib Dems in 2019 is their campaign was a bit too broad, so they gained an alright chunk of votes but lost seats overall. At least in the moment I think it makes more sense for them to focus on getting a bunch of the relatively low hanging Tory seats, rather than trying to compete with Labour in the 4 or 5 seats that are somewhat competitive between them, secure that status as the third party in Westminster again with the heightened visibility that gives, and use that to build back again for 2029 - a bit like how the Lib Dems got a big jump in 1997 then built on that with smaller jumps in 2001 and 2005.
The Lib Dems could even become the official opposition in this election if things go well for them and badly for the Tories. There are expected to be a lot of close seats in this election so accurate predictions are difficult but Lib Dems could theoretically get as many as around 70 seats and the Cons could get as low as around 40 seats. Of course, it is still more likely that the Tories will have more seats than the Lib Dems but we can hope.
[StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
The Lib Dems are best placed to oust the Tories in certain seats and that ship hasn’t sailed in constituencies Wimbledon, Guildford and other london suburbs full of nimbys where it will be quite tight.
Many of these voters would rather eat their shoe than vote Labour because they see the left wing as ready to take the reigns at any moment.
The lib dems offer a safe, viable alternative until the Tories get their house in order. The quiet Tory vote will be there, even if it’s not polling at the moment.
Edit: autocorrect Tories
Except they _are_ best placed to oust Tories in certain seats.
Many of them in the South West.
Labour’s national strategy 2015-2019 to ignore regional preferences led to 3rd place Labour splitting the anti-Conservative vote and letting them win previously Lib Dem seats.
Yes agreed, I may have lost some nuance in my original post.
Obviously in Lib Dem/ Tory battlegrounds that makes sense, I just mean all Im hearing of them nationally on the radio is to vote for them to get rid or the Tories, and to a lesser extent the SNP. I feel like a message saying "look, we all know Labour are going to walk it, let's not pretend. So vote for us to stop them having a dictator-type majority.
They aren't going to be in a good position to contest Labour based on current polling. Labour are looking at 350-500 seats. The Lib Dems are looking at less than 70 based on polling. I am hoping they win as many seats as possible because I want the Tories knocked into 3rd place or worse. I don't care if the Lib Dems take seats away from Labour as long as they don't help Conservatives win seats. Arguably having too many seats would make life more difficult for Starmer.
It's more about electoral strategy than anything else. Labour and the Lib Dems really aren't competing anywhere (except maybe 5 or 6 seats at a push), so it doesn't make sense for either of them to focus their campaigning on the other.
Indeed, one key example of this was the Scottish leader's debate a while back - that includes a section where the party leaders "cross-examine" one another, and the Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders effectively gave each other questions that focused on attacking the Tories and the SNP (because that's where they are actually competing). Even at the most recent debate, Angela Rayner and Daisy Cooper didn't really attack each other either.
That would mean campaigning in labour seats though. I agree with your principle, but if left-ish voters start going yellow it's only going to benefit the tories
Unless the majority is slight (10-20) the size of it is immaterial, the government can pass whatever it wants through the Commons regardless of the opposition.
This is a great manifesto that actually offers solutions instead of faffing about and not addressing the single biggest issue in the country: inflation. More options = lower prices for the consumers.
Single market re-entry would be such a boost to the economy that it would make every single other part of the manifesto possible.
> They want the UK to be back in the single market, but not re-join the EU.
They want to rejoin the EU.
They say in their manifesto published today says that rejoining the EU “remains our longer-term objective”.
I'll vote for ANY party that votes to get back in the EU. Leaving was dumbest thing this country has ever done and everyone who voted for leaving should be ashamed.
Lib Dems have always been a very middle of the road party, generally somewhere between Labour and the Tories. Of course the Tories have gone to shit and New Labour are more to the right than traditional Labour. Reasonable is what I would expect from the Lib Dems. While they have a lot to play for in this election, a chance to become the official opposition, not being in the big 2 gives them more freedom to say what they want while the Tories and Labour play stupid political games.
[StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
They’re have been pro electoral reform & abolish FPTP basically forever (see John Cleese on YouTube try to explain electoral reform in the 90s). They’re also long term proponents of legalising cannabis.
Those two would be enough for me. Sadly we do have FPTP so I won’t be voting for them.
> Lib Dems have always been a very middle of the road party, generally somewhere between Labour and the Tories.
The Lib-Dems' national platform is very different to how the Lib-Dems actually campaign, vote and govern locally. They're right-wing economically and left-wing socially, at a national level. At a local level, though it's completely different.
In constituencies where the Tories are the only game in town and Labour are nowhere near winning, they campaign as Orange Tories, e.g. by outflanking the Tories on the right by promising no new affordable homes will be built in well-to-do areas, or promising that there'll be no asylum seeker processing centre within that rural, 99% white area.
In constituencies where Labour are the only game in town and the Tories are nowhere near winning, they campaign as Orange Labour e.g. by outflanking Labour on the left by promising new affordable homes will built in well-to-do areas, or promising that child asylum seekers will be provided with school places to give them an education.
They position themselves to the left or right of the incumbent, depending on what they think will give them the best chance of winning the seat.
The Lib-Dems are basically two parties glued together and we should be very careful we don't make the same fucking stupid mistake as in 2010, where a bunch of disaffected voters crossed over to voting for Lib-Dem as "like Labour but not as toxic" and ended up giving us 14 years of austerity, plus Brexit, plus PPE fraud, plus Tory capture of regulatory bodies, Tory capture of the BBC, etc.
I mean, the Lib Dems are literally two parties figuratively glued together.
But one could also say Trad Labour and New Labour are also very different parties. Mod Cons and ERG loonies are also different parties. That's the problem with FPTP and why it needs to go. It becomes all about big party, wide-umbrella politics and winning the election rather than policy.
Difference is the Tories and Labour broadly run as the same party everywhere. The Lib-Dems run as Liberals in Tory-leaning constituencies and Social Democrats in Labour-leaning constituencies.
I don't see it as a bad compromise for liberal to suggest this. The question is how many European treaties do we want to adhere to. I can respect Ed Davies policy here.
>The question is how many European treaties do we want to adhere to
A lot of it comes down to what we can negotiate - realistically we're unlikely to get a better deal than Norway or Switzerland, but with the size of the UK and all the political baggage it's also entirely possible that a deal modeled on either of those two options might not be on the table without some additional concessions on the part of the UK. Especially with Switzerland-style arrangement given that there's no way the EU would agree to go through all the guillotine clause negotiations that they have to go through with Switzerland every time they update the treaties
For some people it is. Some people only hear about the crazies in reform on a daily basis, so they would probably like to know there are sane people out there and there is hope.
A small note for anyone planning to vote for an independent candidate in the upcoming election.
[This](https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto) is what’s called a ‘manifesto’. You may agree with all of it, some of it or none of it, but notice how it comprehensively covers every aspect of the Liberal Democrats’ policies.
The Labour Party, the Conservatives and every other serious party will have one of these that they will publish in due course.
What their manifestos won’t consist of is three paragraphs of [duckspeak](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duckspeak) about a certain current armed conflict and then a short, meaningless series of platitudes about the cost of living crisis, climate change, immigration and ULEZ.
What party/manifesto are you referring to in that last statement?
Thought you meant the LDs, but their International policy section seems relatively concise.
I’m referring to independent candidates who are asking their potential constituents to send them to Westminster based on a single emotive issue and don’t have any actual positions on anything else.
Anyone can have a few thousand cards printed up and use their right to send everyone in the constituency a letter to say ‘Free Palestine, also cost of living bad I guess?’.
Any independent candidate who hasn't realised that they almost never win is ... well, missing some essential research.
But those that have, historically, haven't _needed_ manifestos. There's no point - they can't implement any of it.
But sometimes there is a sufficiently important local issue that does still carry them into Westminster. It's happened a _few_ times in the last 100 years.
If those are the issues that matter most to those people, is it not good that there are independent candidates that let them express their opinion? I also wouldn't expect the same level of detail in manifestos from independents; they're in parliament to represent their constituents' interests and provide scrutiny on said issues, not to govern.
Yes, in ensuring there's another Tory-LibDem coalition. Cameron and Clegg were the architects of austerity, and they made sure that the biggest targets were people who'd probably never vote for either of them (the disabled, the poor, the working-class) and instead insured that *their* voters did very well out of austerity (pensioners, rural voters, millionaires).
People also said that in 2015 they were finished as a party. Seems not to be the case. But you are correct nick clegg was instrumental in austerity. But he is gone.
Chuffed about this. Lib Dems came 2nd vs Con in my constituency last time. I was going to vote Lib Dem anyway just to get the Tories out, but wasn't particularly enthusiastic about them. Now I'm happy to vote for a proper pro-EU party.
Same. I was really depressed that no big parties were pro EU. It was strange because half the country desperately wants to get back in, so this move by the Lib Dems is a no-brainer now.
i’m a lib dem voter, won where I live since I was born, although maybe i’m biased because I was the first baby Ed Davey kissed in his campaign trail (on the hand tho v fancy)
I love both of you! Let’s get the Tories down to double digits. They’ve fully earned it.
It would be incredible if Lib Dem’s were the official opposition. It’s what the country needs.
All voting is tactical voting :)
Your voting strategies are:
(A) "I don't care who wins, so I will use my vote to show support for a particular manifesto/party and hope the winner notices that leaning"
(B) "I really don't want a particular party to win, so I will vote for their strongest opposition in my area".
This is how UK voting works. Most people think it's (A) is actually "vote for the party you want to win" and refer to (B) as tactival voting like (A) is not tactical voting ... because they misunderstood the tactics.
That was about getting the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations. If we’re joining properly then we can eat the cake so long as we pay for the cake.
Jail for what?! You’re going on like he was one of the main conspirators.
He was business minister for 2 years from 2010 during which time he met with Bates (albeit 5 months after the first request). The scandal dates back to 1999 so that’s a lot of business ministers to jail.
He’s said sorry he was lied to as well. That’s not good enough and he should’ve done way better - but what criminal element is there?
Purely hypothetical because it won’t happen, but what if Labour and Lib Dem’s formed a coalition after this next GE?
I can guess, exactly what destroyed their credibility as a political party under Clegg when they failed to keep promises on student loans.
The reality is there isn’t the appetite to rejoin at any cost. The EU aren’t going to welcome us back in, we will be required to comply with policies that are antithetical to what the Brexit vote constituted.
The Lib Dems don’t really matter in the current political landscape, so I guess it doesn’t really matter what their manifesto says.
A coalition isn't realistic as Labour are expected to get anywhere between 350-500 seats. But what is realistic is the Lib Dems supplanting the Tories as the second largest party and so become the official opposition in Westminster. While the Tories are currently polling to get more seats than the Lib Dems within the ranges of error the Lib Dems could get over 70 seats and the Tories could get around 40. The problem is that there are more than 100 seats that are expected to be very close this election. Hence the big ranges for seat numbers.
If you're somewhere where the Tories have a chance of winning a seat I suggest visiting [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote) to find out who is best positioned to take a seat from them.
You can’t just join the single market!
It’s an integral components of the EU dependant on freedom of movement and the euro.
The UK enjoyed a set of opt-outs as an early member but can no longer pick and choose.
It would be easier to rejoin the EU and adopt the euro which sadly is as impossible as the LibDems coming into power.
Iceland, Lichenstein, Norway and Switzerland area are all members of the European Single Market without being members of the EU.
You're right though that it would mean adopting Schengen travel rules and other EU-related policies.
Perhaps the most realistic model would be the European Union–Turkey Customs Union that was signed in the 90s. That grants free movement of goods and a common external tariff, but not other political or economic ties.
So, not re-joining as much as signing a free trade agreement WITH the EU that give us access to the common market.
Those countries probably joined when the bloc was in its infancy so there was more flexibility in the conditions and the structure was less ‘political’. Now the conditions for joining are far more strict and the newer members would not allow a repentant UK to pick and choose from a menu dated 1975.
Turkey is a special case because Europe has traditionally needed them on side against Russia but the possibility of Turkey ever becoming a full member is practically zero.
You cannot be in the single market without freedom of movement which is why Theresa May discounted the possibility early on in the withdrawal process and all the talk of a ‘Norway style’ deal or a ‘soft Brexit’ was nonsense.
> Perhaps the most realistic model would be the European Union–Turkey Customs Union that was signed in the 90s. That grants free movement of goods
It doesn't. The customs union eases some formalities when it comes to tariff barriers and customs procedures, but it would be a minimum upgrade (if any) over the TCA because the main problem of the UK are non-tariff barriers which can only be solved through the single market architecture.
Ideally you'd have both so they work synergistically, but the important thing is the single market: Switzerland and Norway are in the single market but not the customs union for example. Turkey is stuck in this limbo because the EU didn't trust them and that was as far as they would go, they expected it to be a stepping stone to the single market but it never happened. They don't like it themselves and the reasons are very similar to what's happening in the UK https://www.ft.com/content/bbd5cb32-8754-4770-86fa-2f3d01ffc3fe
>One big complaint is the long queue of lorries at the Turkish-Bulgarian border due to border checks.
>“Turkish products are freely able to be sent into the customs union. But the trucks which are carrying Turkish products are not able to travel everywhere in Europe. And also the drivers are not able to travel,” Kacir said. “That kind of thing should be solved.”
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/truckers-face-lengthy-delays-at-bulgaria-border-gate-188020
They might as well pledge free houses on the moon for all the chance they have.
I like the colour of their signs though.
Well I liked them too, then we had Nick Clegg. People have long memories.
>People have long memories. Apart from when the tories are involved for whatever reason
I think that “whatever reason” in this case is that the British press is mostly Tory supporting and basically lied to the public about the coalition. The Lib Dem’s did get elements of their manifesto enacted, we were just told they didn’t and a lot of people believe that.
Or people voted almost entirely on their promises to students and were betrayed.
I was a student who voted for them and didn’t feel betrayed. I understand that you have to horse trade in a coalition and they went hard on electoral reform. Given that the tories were voted in on austerity, tuition fees was always going to be a policy that they’d either refuse outright or demand huge concessions for.
Hmmm. They went for the weakest possible form of electoral reform, and, crucially the Tories were not bound to support it so they got nowhere. The Tories were not voted in on austerity : [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-at-a-glance](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/13/conservative-manifesto-at-a-glance) And shifting student debt from public to private just meant higher interest bills. You could imagine that the 'scrap tuition fees' pledge would be lost, but tripling tuition fees was ridiculous.
Yeah they had to compromise on it as well, it doesn’t mean they didn’t chalk up some wins which are never mentioned. Don’t care what one summary of their manifesto says, huge amounts of the rhetoric around them was about austerity, it was a huge issue. The review that the tories bandied around to justify the increase recommended removing the cap altogether. We will never know the details of what was traded but it seems eminently possible that the only reason we have a cap is Lib Dem horse trading.
Did they though? What exactly would have happened if they had declared it a red line issue and threatened to bring down the government if it was not enacted? Bearing in mind that we have a more recent example of the DUP exerting wildly disproportionate influence over the Conservative government with no more leverage than the Lib Dem’s had when they were literally part of the government.
> The Tories were not voted in on austerity : Literally the first line >> Emergency budget within 50 days of election to include immediate £6bn cut in wasteful spending and one-year freeze on public sector pay in 2011
I was about to become a student and did feel betrayed, as did many of my classmates etc at the time. Perhaps thats naive, but 18 year olds aren't well known for their life experience. It very much soured the party and that can take a long time to recover from.
Yeah I agree it did sour the party but I think that’s largely because they didn’t get any credit for anything they did get through because they were massively unfairly treated by the press. Whatever they traded away, it’s the only thing the press would have covered.
Yeah, I've heard that since. Unfortunately for me, Cleggs most important campaign point was 'no tuition fee rises' and then it went from 3k a year debt to 9k a year debt overnight, in a system where almost all roles now seem to insist on having a degree. I feel like we'd have been better off with a system that limited fee increases on key subjects the country required more of, but allowed increases on subjects we didn't, but I'm no expert. I was so concerned about the debt that I never went to university, and I likely lay some of that at the Lib Dems feet.
Feeling betrayed is one of the unfortunate side effects of betrayal.
It may be my memory, but I'm sure the Lib Democrats also initiated the incremental rise of the the taxable pay threshold (it went up 1k per year)
To be fair, I still blame the Tories over the Lib Dem's.
When this got raised in the debate i was like.. Why isn't the lib dem response this: "well, we trusted the Tories would honor our agreement and look what happened, You've all made the same mistake when you voted in boris..."
Because their agreement with the Tories involved raising fees.
TIL it's more complicated than that... The Tories being the senior party forced the Lib Dems to have to make choices which parts of their manifesto could be realised. Raising Income Tax threshold, Pupil Premium, Pension Reform, Green Investment Bank, fixed-term parliaments, Alternative Vote (AV) system for electing MP's (this failed alongside reforming house of lords also failed), and some changes to Civil Liberties and Human Rights were all on the cards as more feasible policies to realise than scrapping tuition fees. Tories gave LD's a choice about what was economically feasible, and scrapping tuition fees sounded like it wasn't viable over other areas? That's quite tricky to discuss in a short sound bite...
Interesting thank you for the education :)
Same here, but they get some of it in my mind, whether thats fair or not. Probably because of things like this: [https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nick\_clegg\_tuitionfees.jpg](https://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nick_clegg_tuitionfees.jpg)
That promise was predicated upon them getting a majority (which was never going to happen), and therefore as soon as they went into coalition that manifesto promise becomes null and void; we were operating under the Tory manifesto, and Clegg got to do his ‘Ted’, to Cameron’s ‘Ralph’ (*Fast Show* reference, kids), with Ted tasked to just fix the fence in the cow field and mow the lawns while Ralph got to jolly about in his new brogues.
Yeah bit like a lot of people voted for 350 Million a week into the NHS and were betrayed. Its all swings and roundabouts with politicians.
Destroy the economy, throw away our international influence and soft power, fumble pandemic response, allow public services to collapse, let inflation get out of control, ignore the housing crisis, talk endlessly about illegal immigration but do nothing to stop it, raise taxes to the highest in generations. "But muh tuition fees 15 years ago!!!!"
Spot on.
Tories legit get a free pass every 10 years for all past indiscretions. These arseholes are Teflon, it's like the entire country gets neuralized and votes them back in and then blame the previous party for all shit they do for the next term.
The UK Electorate has done a remarkable job at holding the Lib Dems to account for entering a coalition with the Tories and breaking their promises a decade ago. It doesn't care all too much about the actual Tories, though.
Dementia.
So given that, in a coalition, you do not get to enact 100% of your manifesto because why on earth would you, which elements would they have had to drop and which would they have had to keep for you to have been happy?
Lib Dem now but when the tuition fees thing happened I had until recently been voting for Labour - aka the Iraq war party. The Tories meanwhile are the austerity and Brexit party so on balance the crimes of the Lib Dems (not being able to get tuition fees through in coalition) seem pretty insignificant.
They went hard on two things: reform of the voting system and university fees. They got into coalition with the Tory's who gave them the shittest possible voting reform (which their media friends then caused to bomb) and got them to compromise on university fees (which their media friends then used to cause the lib dems to bomb). They basically got played by the Tories, who promptly kicked them out at the next election and caused the whole country to bomb.
The Facebook guy?
Yes. A two-timing, no good, two-bit hustler
Too long?
and the fact that he now works for facefuck
You mean like when a certain war criminal lied to get us involved in a war that killed millions? Shame that Blair was a junior partner in that coalition that didn't exist too
I never understand this mentality. I literally went to University when the first year the fees rose. It’s naive of any of us to think they held much sway in that government, Nick Clegg likewise was a weak leader and got demolished rightfully in the next election. But in retrospect, it’s really not worth ignoring them now, especially if you like their policies. The fee rise has little to no consequence on my life, or anyone’s. It’s effectively a student tax. If a party offers progressive ideas and policies, that’s what I’ll vote for and currently this manifesto ticks the right boxes for me - a guy in 45k+ debt to the student finance company 👍
Diamond shape is nice too.
WINNING HERE
Well too bad my moon house is gonna be purple.
Doesn't matter there is now a major political party talking about rejoining the single market UKIP managed to bring about brexit in the first place and I can count on one hand the number of MPs they have had. Lib Dems taking this stance could put pressure on Labour in future general elections. the prediction was that brexit and anything around that would not be mentioned in this election, Lib Dems have changed that.
Yeah I have always voted Lib Dems, this was going to be my first time voting Labour, purely just to help the pendulum swing as far as it can away from the Conservatives. This announcement by the Lib Dems has me questioning that... plus I live in a Labour safe seat anyway...
If it's truly a safe seat then it's fair game to just vote for whose manifesto you like the most For the rest of us, www.stopthetories.vote
Yep. Exactly my thinking. As long as the Conservatives lose: if the Labour are set to be a massive majority then my interests are in making it a slightly smaller majority by bolstering smaller parties like the Greens and Lib Dems. I want the Tories out, but I am by no means a fan of those two party stranglehold. So, whichever small party best aligns with issues I care about will be the one to win my vote, this announcement helped.
My interest is just reducing the Tories to the lowest number of seats possible, ideally to knock them into 3rd place or worse.
Hate FPTP so much. I'd love to vote Lib Dem but I think my constituency is currently neck and neck between Tories and Labour and I have to vote Labour tactically.
FPTP is so patently an absurd system in the modern world where standard "left/right" responses don't have the nuance required to find solutions to combinations of problems. With luck, the fact that the Tories are going to be a small party with no influence (or way of attracting donors to buy said influence) may make some of them (and their influential media supporters) rethink their opposition to electoral reform - At least if it's looking like a long term in the wilderness. Not for the benefit of anyone but themselves obviously, but if it's at least discussed more that may be a benefit. Obviously they'd plan to drop it the second it didn't help them any more, but it might be harder to reverse once the bandwagon is started.
I'm encouraging everyone to vote for whoever will get the Tories out but if the Tories have no chance then vote for whoever you want.
Same, labour safe seat. Was considering greens but I haven't seen enough of them yet to know what to do. This is a strong pull for me to be lib dem though, I might become a single issue voter for a while if there's a party opting to rejoin the single market in some way.
I hate this seemingly new fangled idea that politics is all or nothing. Lib Dem’s have never had a majority, and Ed has said multiple times they don’t expect it, he just wants to talk about Lib Dem policies getting made, but they can be one of two things: A play maker. They’ve been this multiple times. Slim majorities or hung parliaments mean they can get certain things on the table. Secondly, arguably more importantly, a litmus test of what is popular. They have a few, very specific policies, including this one. Labour could lose an election on this subject, Lib Dem’s can only gain. Should they gain enough, it means this issue is then on the table for the two major parties.
They also have a rare opportunity to become the official opposition, so this is potentially a big election for the Lib Dems.
Probably going to to be the main opposition to Labour if Sunak stays leader of the Tories until polling day.
You say that like there’s a better option within the Tory party. He’s genuinely the best they have to offer. Scary.
I don't think he is tbh. I think there are a lot of better candidates than him (and I don't mean ones who'll magically fix everything but ones who will slow the rate it gets worse), but I think they all recognise it doesn't matter who is in charge. Tories cannot win the next election. The best they can hope for is Labour doesn't get a full majority and has to lead a coalition. If you know that, you don't want to be in the front seat of the Tory party. Especially after last election was pretty good for you. Let someone else take the fall, wait until people inevitably forget how bad your years in power were, then lead the attempted comeback.
Yeah, there's definitely signs within the Party that they think they'll be in in Opposition, and that's been the case for ... a while now. So a bunch of prime contenders have been rather quiet, and are _maybe_ going to go for Leader of the Opposition to get a run up to the next election, rather than wanting to be the Leader that Loses the Election. I think Sunak has figured that out, which is why he pulled the trigger - he doesn't actually have to do the job, and he's got no reason to care, so may as well sod off and have a nice summer in California.
Realistically can he not stay leader until polling day? Has a party leader in an election just quit, a PM no less.
Scottish tory leader just quit
Coincidence or super power? Let’s find out, will the universe give me £1million?
[удалено]
Yeah I'm in a similar boat. I hate that the electoral system we have is encouraging me to vote for a party only to deny the one I dislike more.
Lib dem manifesto pledges to let Ed Davey have as much fun as possible in the lead up to the election. Today he’s going on all of the rollercoasters and then he’s going to play a game of giant kerplunk
Honestly that’s probably more productive than Sunak’s itinerary.
It would warm my heart to see Rishi going on all of the rides at Alton towers that he’s tall enough to get on
They're looking at Oblivion right now.
Remember when Farage did his plane stunt and the marquee fouled his engine and he spent election day watching the vote from his hospital bed?
I remember seeing the picture of him just after the crash. He looked like a swollen up red frog. It was only later that I realised this was his usual appearance
Thinking like this is what has turned the UK into two party politics.
16 million remain votes, 48% of the electorate they stand every chance, they stood every chance in 2019 too but people are so tunnel visioned when it comes to GEs
Will be good to get it I to the political discourse. I'm hoping labour will do this, not in one big deal but industry by industry do deals to bring it back If they want to get the economy going I can't think of anything cheaper and better
There's a non zero chance that they will he the official opposition. Depends on how badly Sunaks campaign goes and how much damage reform do to the tories (it will be a lot of damage, but it could be fatal)
I dunno. They might get a coalition, if the hyperbole of the labour victory isn't quite as much as what the polls say.
They're more likely to beat the tories than labor are to not get a majority in my opinion
Still more chance than the Tories
That's what they thought in 2010 when they made promises about university fees they never thought they'd be in power to have to stick to.
"Everyone gets a pony, and a blowjob!"
That's how politics works. You set your goal and almost always settle for somewhere short of it. That's what the problem is with centrism, they set their goals where they should end up and then end up compromising further on it and wonder why no one is happy. Starmer should be making bold promises, and compromise down to something good. Instead he's promising good and will likely end up negotiating down on it. It's negotiations 101, don't start out with the price you will be happy with at the end of the negotiation.
I think their message is all wrong. They are still saying they are best placed to oust Tories in certain seats. That ship has long gone. They should be campaigning on keeping Labour in check. Opposition parties play an important role. Noone should want a 400 seat party in government
I agree but I think they should do both
We need two elections. This first election needs to be about destroying the tory party. Making them seem like a 3rd party that is no longer viable to vote for. Then we need another election where Labour contest Lib Dem and sadly reform UK directly.
You do realise the Tories currently poll 2nd, Reform 3rd lib Dems 4th?
Happy to see the polls you are looking at - because that is not what I've seen.
In terms of projected seats Lib Dem’s are ahead of reform but in terms of vote share reform are ahead
[https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction\_main.html](https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html) Granted not Reform 3rd, don't know where that's come from.
Frighteningly, you are right and the source backs you up (scroll down to the graph) Personally, I don't know how anyone can vote for the ~~Brexit~~ Reform Party, given their, and Farages awful track record. Awful, terrible, worst policies in our country's history level takes, such as: - Vladimir Putin was justified invading Ukraine - "Climate change has happened for millions of years... We are better to adapt to warming, rather than pretending we can stop it" - Insurance based healthcare schemes - Brexit What reality are these folks living in?!
>Personally, I don't know how anyone can vote for the Brexit Reform Party, given their, and Farages awful track record. That's because labour and conservatives have proven to have terrible track records also ,I think some people are just sick of the same two parties,voting reform is a middle finger to the top two parties
I agree. You'd like to think that if folks wanted to stick it to the two parties, they'd choose the one that is offering to fix their embarrassing mistakes, rather than just a worse version of the Tories.
When their members can't stop spewing vile and downright Nazi sympathies, a person must have a few screws loose if they want to vote Reform. Just look at this cunt Reform candidate saying we should've been neutral with the Nazi's and these whacko statements are coming up regularly: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
I do agree with Reform's point about climate change, but for a different reason. Yes, I do think we're better off adapting to it at this point. That's because I personally think that we've already pushed the climate beyond the point of no return. All we can do now is mitigate the damage we've caused, and there isn't any stopping it now.
That is a defeatist thought, and actually, it can get a lot worse than it already is if we don't slam the brakes on pretty soon. A huge percentage of their donations are from oil and gas investors. Their aim could not be more apparent. Keep oil flowing no matter the expense. And every investment we make into more sustainable energy now will give us vital lifelines, not just with abundant energy, but also can remove reliance on foreign oil and gas imports by making them secondary resources.
3/4 would be an american kind of module. it will become 4/4 soon.
If you think of it like this: 10-15% (aka, 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 people) are racist nutjobs... does that not make sense to you? It would certainly reflect my view of the people I know and have known across my various avenues of life. They do tend to cluster together though. I know a lot of people who would almost never cross paths with those I consider 'racist nutjobs'. The racist nutjobs cluster at the top and bottom of the socio-economic spectrum, with a light smattering across the middle class - in my experience. I'm glad they now have their own party, as historically they were just boosting the conservatives, along with the old people who spent the last decade assuming the Tories were the same as they were back in 1970.
Just like Mosley's fascist movement in the UK
https://news.sky.com/story/election-latest-d-day-blunder-hasnt-lost-election-minister-insists-tories-vow-to-scrap-ulez-expansion-12593360?postid=7797026#liveblog-body
https://news.sky.com/story/election-latest-d-day-blunder-hasnt-lost-election-minister-insists-tories-vow-to-scrap-ulez-expansion-12593360?postid=7797026#liveblog-body It was on this sub today but I can't link to the thread. Yes it's total vote rather than seats but given you're making up a new election process I think that's reasonable to say reform are 3rd.
In vote share but not in seats. Currently Labour 1st, Conservatives 2nd and Lib Dems for 3rd in seats. And polls are showing that if the Tories do poorly and the Lib Dems do well the Lib Dems could overtake the Tories and come 2nd. The problem with this election is that more than 100 seats are expected to be very close which makes a precise prediction difficult. I just want to get rid of as many Tories as possible. [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
This is number of votes, not number of projected seats.
We just really need proportional representation. I don't imagine Labour will do it, which is a shame as their primary goal should be to stop the Tories ever having unfettered power again.
Not for this election, IMO - the issue with the Lib Dems in 2019 is their campaign was a bit too broad, so they gained an alright chunk of votes but lost seats overall. At least in the moment I think it makes more sense for them to focus on getting a bunch of the relatively low hanging Tory seats, rather than trying to compete with Labour in the 4 or 5 seats that are somewhat competitive between them, secure that status as the third party in Westminster again with the heightened visibility that gives, and use that to build back again for 2029 - a bit like how the Lib Dems got a big jump in 1997 then built on that with smaller jumps in 2001 and 2005.
The Lib Dems could even become the official opposition in this election if things go well for them and badly for the Tories. There are expected to be a lot of close seats in this election so accurate predictions are difficult but Lib Dems could theoretically get as many as around 70 seats and the Cons could get as low as around 40 seats. Of course, it is still more likely that the Tories will have more seats than the Lib Dems but we can hope. [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
That site is so behind and still has a bunch of constituencies with no recommendation. https://tactical.vote/ is generally more up to date
The Lib Dems are best placed to oust the Tories in certain seats and that ship hasn’t sailed in constituencies Wimbledon, Guildford and other london suburbs full of nimbys where it will be quite tight. Many of these voters would rather eat their shoe than vote Labour because they see the left wing as ready to take the reigns at any moment. The lib dems offer a safe, viable alternative until the Tories get their house in order. The quiet Tory vote will be there, even if it’s not polling at the moment. Edit: autocorrect Tories
Except they _are_ best placed to oust Tories in certain seats. Many of them in the South West. Labour’s national strategy 2015-2019 to ignore regional preferences led to 3rd place Labour splitting the anti-Conservative vote and letting them win previously Lib Dem seats.
Yes agreed, I may have lost some nuance in my original post. Obviously in Lib Dem/ Tory battlegrounds that makes sense, I just mean all Im hearing of them nationally on the radio is to vote for them to get rid or the Tories, and to a lesser extent the SNP. I feel like a message saying "look, we all know Labour are going to walk it, let's not pretend. So vote for us to stop them having a dictator-type majority.
That's exactly what they were saying at the last debate?
They aren't going to be in a good position to contest Labour based on current polling. Labour are looking at 350-500 seats. The Lib Dems are looking at less than 70 based on polling. I am hoping they win as many seats as possible because I want the Tories knocked into 3rd place or worse. I don't care if the Lib Dems take seats away from Labour as long as they don't help Conservatives win seats. Arguably having too many seats would make life more difficult for Starmer.
It's more about electoral strategy than anything else. Labour and the Lib Dems really aren't competing anywhere (except maybe 5 or 6 seats at a push), so it doesn't make sense for either of them to focus their campaigning on the other. Indeed, one key example of this was the Scottish leader's debate a while back - that includes a section where the party leaders "cross-examine" one another, and the Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders effectively gave each other questions that focused on attacking the Tories and the SNP (because that's where they are actually competing). Even at the most recent debate, Angela Rayner and Daisy Cooper didn't really attack each other either.
That would mean campaigning in labour seats though. I agree with your principle, but if left-ish voters start going yellow it's only going to benefit the tories
Unless the majority is slight (10-20) the size of it is immaterial, the government can pass whatever it wants through the Commons regardless of the opposition.
We'll do all the stuff Labour promised but will back out of once in power.
Like how the Lib Dems did with tuition fees in 2010? (not)
This is a great manifesto that actually offers solutions instead of faffing about and not addressing the single biggest issue in the country: inflation. More options = lower prices for the consumers. Single market re-entry would be such a boost to the economy that it would make every single other part of the manifesto possible.
They want the UK to be back in the single market, but not re-join the EU. Are there any parties that wish to re-join?
> Are there any parties that wish to re-join The SNP in Scotland, PC in Wales (I think!), and Greens in England.
Rejoining the single market is the first step to that
A single market would not be so terrible, considering a return to the UE seems not to be on the table.
> They want the UK to be back in the single market, but not re-join the EU. They want to rejoin the EU. They say in their manifesto published today says that rejoining the EU “remains our longer-term objective”.
They literally say that in the manifesto. SM as a stepping stone to rejoining.
Yes, the Lib Dems do.
Probably ideology wise but realistically not. We’ve kind of torpedoed that idea for a while.
Good on them tbh. I'm not a lib dem voter but the idea needs to be introduced into the public consciousness.
I'll vote for ANY party that votes to get back in the EU. Leaving was dumbest thing this country has ever done and everyone who voted for leaving should be ashamed.
Am I the only one who thinks the Lib Dem’s are actually proposing a lot of reasonable policies that finally address people’s everyday concerns?
Lib Dems have always been a very middle of the road party, generally somewhere between Labour and the Tories. Of course the Tories have gone to shit and New Labour are more to the right than traditional Labour. Reasonable is what I would expect from the Lib Dems. While they have a lot to play for in this election, a chance to become the official opposition, not being in the big 2 gives them more freedom to say what they want while the Tories and Labour play stupid political games. [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
I mean funnily enough, of the three, they seem the most progressive based on what I’ve been hearing 👀
They’re have been pro electoral reform & abolish FPTP basically forever (see John Cleese on YouTube try to explain electoral reform in the 90s). They’re also long term proponents of legalising cannabis. Those two would be enough for me. Sadly we do have FPTP so I won’t be voting for them.
> Lib Dems have always been a very middle of the road party, generally somewhere between Labour and the Tories. The Lib-Dems' national platform is very different to how the Lib-Dems actually campaign, vote and govern locally. They're right-wing economically and left-wing socially, at a national level. At a local level, though it's completely different. In constituencies where the Tories are the only game in town and Labour are nowhere near winning, they campaign as Orange Tories, e.g. by outflanking the Tories on the right by promising no new affordable homes will be built in well-to-do areas, or promising that there'll be no asylum seeker processing centre within that rural, 99% white area. In constituencies where Labour are the only game in town and the Tories are nowhere near winning, they campaign as Orange Labour e.g. by outflanking Labour on the left by promising new affordable homes will built in well-to-do areas, or promising that child asylum seekers will be provided with school places to give them an education. They position themselves to the left or right of the incumbent, depending on what they think will give them the best chance of winning the seat. The Lib-Dems are basically two parties glued together and we should be very careful we don't make the same fucking stupid mistake as in 2010, where a bunch of disaffected voters crossed over to voting for Lib-Dem as "like Labour but not as toxic" and ended up giving us 14 years of austerity, plus Brexit, plus PPE fraud, plus Tory capture of regulatory bodies, Tory capture of the BBC, etc.
I mean, the Lib Dems are literally two parties figuratively glued together. But one could also say Trad Labour and New Labour are also very different parties. Mod Cons and ERG loonies are also different parties. That's the problem with FPTP and why it needs to go. It becomes all about big party, wide-umbrella politics and winning the election rather than policy.
Difference is the Tories and Labour broadly run as the same party everywhere. The Lib-Dems run as Liberals in Tory-leaning constituencies and Social Democrats in Labour-leaning constituencies.
Weren't they mostly always doing that? I mean, trying to seem reasonable was about the only way to stay politically relevant in the first place.
[удалено]
Interestingly they were most popular when they ran to the left of Labour before the coalition years.
That's what the brexiteers themselves promised during the ref...
I don't see it as a bad compromise for liberal to suggest this. The question is how many European treaties do we want to adhere to. I can respect Ed Davies policy here.
>The question is how many European treaties do we want to adhere to A lot of it comes down to what we can negotiate - realistically we're unlikely to get a better deal than Norway or Switzerland, but with the size of the UK and all the political baggage it's also entirely possible that a deal modeled on either of those two options might not be on the table without some additional concessions on the part of the UK. Especially with Switzerland-style arrangement given that there's no way the EU would agree to go through all the guillotine clause negotiations that they have to go through with Switzerland every time they update the treaties
Is this news? The Lib Dems have been consistently pro European single market membership for several decades.
For some people it is. Some people only hear about the crazies in reform on a daily basis, so they would probably like to know there are sane people out there and there is hope.
A small note for anyone planning to vote for an independent candidate in the upcoming election. [This](https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto) is what’s called a ‘manifesto’. You may agree with all of it, some of it or none of it, but notice how it comprehensively covers every aspect of the Liberal Democrats’ policies. The Labour Party, the Conservatives and every other serious party will have one of these that they will publish in due course. What their manifestos won’t consist of is three paragraphs of [duckspeak](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duckspeak) about a certain current armed conflict and then a short, meaningless series of platitudes about the cost of living crisis, climate change, immigration and ULEZ.
What party/manifesto are you referring to in that last statement? Thought you meant the LDs, but their International policy section seems relatively concise.
I’m referring to independent candidates who are asking their potential constituents to send them to Westminster based on a single emotive issue and don’t have any actual positions on anything else. Anyone can have a few thousand cards printed up and use their right to send everyone in the constituency a letter to say ‘Free Palestine, also cost of living bad I guess?’.
Any independent candidate who hasn't realised that they almost never win is ... well, missing some essential research. But those that have, historically, haven't _needed_ manifestos. There's no point - they can't implement any of it. But sometimes there is a sufficiently important local issue that does still carry them into Westminster. It's happened a _few_ times in the last 100 years.
If those are the issues that matter most to those people, is it not good that there are independent candidates that let them express their opinion? I also wouldn't expect the same level of detail in manifestos from independents; they're in parliament to represent their constituents' interests and provide scrutiny on said issues, not to govern.
Lib Dems may not win. But they can be very influential
Yes, in ensuring there's another Tory-LibDem coalition. Cameron and Clegg were the architects of austerity, and they made sure that the biggest targets were people who'd probably never vote for either of them (the disabled, the poor, the working-class) and instead insured that *their* voters did very well out of austerity (pensioners, rural voters, millionaires).
People also said that in 2015 they were finished as a party. Seems not to be the case. But you are correct nick clegg was instrumental in austerity. But he is gone.
I got voted down for mentioning that. But you are 100% right. The Lib Dems are just desperate. They have no chance at real power.
I really hope the opposition to the government is actively campaigning to rejoin the EU over the next 5 years.
Plot twist. *Someone* mentioned Brexit. That someone could take further votes away from the flailing Tories. You couldn't write this election story.
Chuffed about this. Lib Dems came 2nd vs Con in my constituency last time. I was going to vote Lib Dem anyway just to get the Tories out, but wasn't particularly enthusiastic about them. Now I'm happy to vote for a proper pro-EU party.
Same. I was really depressed that no big parties were pro EU. It was strange because half the country desperately wants to get back in, so this move by the Lib Dems is a no-brainer now.
Well that’s now made my mind up. They’ve got my vote!
Had a read through the manifesto, I'm voting Lib Dem.
i’m a lib dem voter, won where I live since I was born, although maybe i’m biased because I was the first baby Ed Davey kissed in his campaign trail (on the hand tho v fancy)
Lib Dem people, wait till Conservatives are out, then juggle your votes
Labour people, don't blindly vote Labour in a two horse race between Tories and Lib Dems, wait till Conservatives are out.
Yup. I'm voting lib Dem because my seat is Tory vs Lib Dems. Labour have never even come within 20% of winning here.
It's a pleasure to trade with you, I'm a Lib Dem voting Labour for the same reason in reverse.
I love both of you! Let’s get the Tories down to double digits. They’ve fully earned it. It would be incredible if Lib Dem’s were the official opposition. It’s what the country needs.
I wish I could vote for labour but they don't seem very pro EU at all.
100% tactical voting [https://tactical.vote/](https://tactical.vote/)
[StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
I will tactical vote. Even if that means voting for a labour party I honestly detest.
All voting is tactical voting :) Your voting strategies are: (A) "I don't care who wins, so I will use my vote to show support for a particular manifesto/party and hope the winner notices that leaning" (B) "I really don't want a particular party to win, so I will vote for their strongest opposition in my area". This is how UK voting works. Most people think it's (A) is actually "vote for the party you want to win" and refer to (B) as tactival voting like (A) is not tactical voting ... because they misunderstood the tactics.
Willing to bet that the average - or potential - Lib Dem voter won't be put off by this policy. They've always been an openly pro-Europe party.
Finally! I was gonna vote for them anyway (because the only other choice in my constituency is Tory) but now I have a tangible reason to.
Unfortunately, as r/uk proves, sensible economic thought has long gone out the window.
Have they spoke to the EU about this? Ive always thought they where pretty adamant amount this with the whole "cant have cake and eat it too".
That was about getting the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations. If we’re joining properly then we can eat the cake so long as we pay for the cake.
Ffs what is wrong with people. If you don't like them don't vote for them
Does it include anything about their leader doing jail time for his role in the Post Office scandal?
Jail for what?! You’re going on like he was one of the main conspirators. He was business minister for 2 years from 2010 during which time he met with Bates (albeit 5 months after the first request). The scandal dates back to 1999 so that’s a lot of business ministers to jail. He’s said sorry he was lied to as well. That’s not good enough and he should’ve done way better - but what criminal element is there?
Purely hypothetical because it won’t happen, but what if Labour and Lib Dem’s formed a coalition after this next GE? I can guess, exactly what destroyed their credibility as a political party under Clegg when they failed to keep promises on student loans. The reality is there isn’t the appetite to rejoin at any cost. The EU aren’t going to welcome us back in, we will be required to comply with policies that are antithetical to what the Brexit vote constituted. The Lib Dems don’t really matter in the current political landscape, so I guess it doesn’t really matter what their manifesto says.
A coalition isn't realistic as Labour are expected to get anywhere between 350-500 seats. But what is realistic is the Lib Dems supplanting the Tories as the second largest party and so become the official opposition in Westminster. While the Tories are currently polling to get more seats than the Lib Dems within the ranges of error the Lib Dems could get over 70 seats and the Tories could get around 40. The problem is that there are more than 100 seats that are expected to be very close this election. Hence the big ranges for seat numbers. If you're somewhere where the Tories have a chance of winning a seat I suggest visiting [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote) to find out who is best positioned to take a seat from them.
You can’t just join the single market! It’s an integral components of the EU dependant on freedom of movement and the euro. The UK enjoyed a set of opt-outs as an early member but can no longer pick and choose. It would be easier to rejoin the EU and adopt the euro which sadly is as impossible as the LibDems coming into power.
Iceland, Lichenstein, Norway and Switzerland area are all members of the European Single Market without being members of the EU. You're right though that it would mean adopting Schengen travel rules and other EU-related policies. Perhaps the most realistic model would be the European Union–Turkey Customs Union that was signed in the 90s. That grants free movement of goods and a common external tariff, but not other political or economic ties. So, not re-joining as much as signing a free trade agreement WITH the EU that give us access to the common market.
Those countries probably joined when the bloc was in its infancy so there was more flexibility in the conditions and the structure was less ‘political’. Now the conditions for joining are far more strict and the newer members would not allow a repentant UK to pick and choose from a menu dated 1975. Turkey is a special case because Europe has traditionally needed them on side against Russia but the possibility of Turkey ever becoming a full member is practically zero. You cannot be in the single market without freedom of movement which is why Theresa May discounted the possibility early on in the withdrawal process and all the talk of a ‘Norway style’ deal or a ‘soft Brexit’ was nonsense.
> Perhaps the most realistic model would be the European Union–Turkey Customs Union that was signed in the 90s. That grants free movement of goods It doesn't. The customs union eases some formalities when it comes to tariff barriers and customs procedures, but it would be a minimum upgrade (if any) over the TCA because the main problem of the UK are non-tariff barriers which can only be solved through the single market architecture. Ideally you'd have both so they work synergistically, but the important thing is the single market: Switzerland and Norway are in the single market but not the customs union for example. Turkey is stuck in this limbo because the EU didn't trust them and that was as far as they would go, they expected it to be a stepping stone to the single market but it never happened. They don't like it themselves and the reasons are very similar to what's happening in the UK https://www.ft.com/content/bbd5cb32-8754-4770-86fa-2f3d01ffc3fe >One big complaint is the long queue of lorries at the Turkish-Bulgarian border due to border checks. >“Turkish products are freely able to be sent into the customs union. But the trucks which are carrying Turkish products are not able to travel everywhere in Europe. And also the drivers are not able to travel,” Kacir said. “That kind of thing should be solved.” https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/truckers-face-lengthy-delays-at-bulgaria-border-gate-188020
At this point the Lib Dems could promise everyone the secret to eternal youth and superpowers. They're still NOT going to win.