A personal message from your Liberal candidate

This is a time when we should all be pulling together, yet here we are, in the middle of a general election which could leave the country desperately divided.

The election itself will not solve any of our problems.  Our present troubles will still be with us long after the result has been announced.  Our need then will not be for confrontation but for partnership, and your  vote could help to bring about that spirit of unity which our country so badly needs.

Even forty or fifty Liberal Members in the next parliament would be enough to change the face of Britain.  They would work with sensible and fair-minded people in either of the other parties and thereby help control the extremists in both.  They would fight for a fairer and more just society in which the burdens (and there will be many) are borne by those best able to carry them.

That’s from an election letter sent to voters by Liberal candidate Michael Winstanley, who was victorious in the February 1974 election in the new constituency of Hazel Grove.

Good to see the same tradition holding strong over 36 years later.

A personal message from Michael Winstanley

(Michael Winstanley had previously been MP Cheadle Division from 1966-70 and was ousted by young Tory Tom Arnold in the October election. Arnold remained MP for Hazel Grove until 1997 when Andrew Stunell won it back for the Lib Dems).

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

21 Comments

  • iain I come from blackpool. Do you really think people in the north will blieve the lib dems were fair at any of the elections to come?

  • Iain- parrot the Tory line all you like. It remains that Labour failed where it adopted the market extremism that your own party is in favour of, had your own premises about markets held true the New Labour project would not have failed.

    From the letter above, it seems you like to think of yourselves as moderates. You’re just the status quo.

  • Yes I do Iain. Look at the investment that was put into the north – this has now been cut. Unfortunately the lib dems will pay the price of becoming Tories – remember that a lot of civil service jobs have at least made sure that places like blackpool, deprived in so many ways, had more than seasonal low paid work. I remember the waste of the thatcher years. They are now back with the ‘on your bike’ rallying call. How can the lib dems stomach the sight of the nodding dogs in the coilition. Where is the heart and the compassion gone? As you can see I am sad and so are many of my friends and colleagues. The public do not like principles to be sacrificed in the name of ambition and half a mansion so that clegg can use it at weekends.

  • Andrew Suffield 27th Jun '10 - 8:07pm

    Look at the investment that was put into the north – this has now been cut.

    No it hasn’t. You’ve been lied to by Labour pundits.

    None of that “investment” was “put into the north”. Labour promised the investment but didn’t actually deliver it. The new government scrapped the promises, since there was never any way to deliver it. Labour lied, and you’re blaming the new government for telling you the truth, because the lies sounded prettier.

  • I take it you live in the north andrew and that you are a tory (sic) liberal democrat. No one lied to me. I have seen the development and know where the money came from.

  • oops defensive lines coming in. They will be needed at the elections when the vat posters with clegg saying they are a bad idea come out

  • @Andrew Suffield: That’s not correct. Those investments- the most high profile of which were loans, by the way, that in the long term would not cost the public a penny- were chickenfeed compared to the cost of, for example, your income tax cut which has been calculated to be regressive by Left Foot Forward, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and by today’s TUC report. To say that they could never have been delivered is ludicrous.

    @Iain Roberts: Says a lot just how identical the Liberal and Tory lines are then doesn’t it?

    The Liberals in government are wringing some things out of the Tories, however-

    “Vince Cable has forced the Home Office to water down its proposed cap on non-EU economic migrants meaning executives from multinational companies and other highly paid foreigners will now be exempt from the strict immigration limits, according to the Sunday Times.”

    Executives from multinational companies and other highly paid foreigners. Go Vince Cable!

  • “It isn’t like 1997 when Labour inherited the economy in a strong position.”

    Oh, here we go. No wonder your party is the party it is if you think 18 years of the Tories left the country in a better position than 13 years of Labour. No matter that Labour inherited a country with between three and four times more children than in the country it left, no matter that waiting lists for the NHS stretched to 18 months, no matter that crime was shooting through the roof and it wasn’t safe to walk the streets. The election happened to be in one of those few years that the country wasn’t in recession, therefore everything smelt of roses in 1997 and Labour had a golden inheritance?

    Labour shouldn’t show humility to you, it should show humility to its supporters and promise not to follow liberal economics ever again.

  • More Labour trolls – yawn

  • *more children in poverty, not just more children full stop!

  • Andrew Suffield 27th Jun '10 - 9:22pm

    To say that they could never have been delivered is ludicrous.

    And where do you suppose that money was going to come from? Labour hadn’t even been able to allocate any real money to them!

    the most high profile of which were loans, by the way, that in the long term would not cost the public a penny

    There’s no justifiable reason for those to come from the government at all. Private finance is quite capable of handling loans which don’t cost anything long-term; the government’s business is dealing with things that do have costs. Just more empty Labour promises of giving you something you don’t need and they don’t have.

  • @Andrew Suffield: Your party has found far more money for regressive tax cuts and free school schemes than Labour needed to build a real economy. And that’s not money we’ll be getting back.

    And, if you’ll do your homework, private loans were supplied based on the government matching those loans. And I’m a socialist- I think it far better that industries be supported based on their use to society rather than their use to profiteers.

    But no, let’s leave it to whim of the marketplace. Maybe it’ll happen, maybe it won’t. Let’s rebuild Britain’s productive economy, destroyed by the previous Tory administration so close to your hearts, on maybes.

  • Conservative 27th Jun '10 - 9:46pm

    well I might as well weigh in as a Tory troll and say that the Lib Dems are quite right in helping put right a country which is effectively insolvent thanks to Labour. A structural deficit can only come about when the government spends more money than it has – recession or no recession – and a structural deficit of 7% (*cough* Labour) is a sure weigh of ensuring that the most vulnerable in society suffer because when the cuts are made to ward off bankrupcy it is they and not the rich who rely on the services that were provided. Labour was once again an appalling mistake and if the Lib Dems can help make sure they never come to power again then good on them.

    (That said there are still a lot of LD policies which we will have to fight but Vince and Nick have done a good job so far)…

  • Maybe if the Right hadn’t have entrenched a low tax settlement off the back of temporary funds from privatizations Labour wouldn’t have had to borrow in order to have the money to spend to fix the deep social problems left by that government. If the premises your two reactionary parties share about the efficiency of free markets were true Labour wouldn’t have been caught having to bail out banks and spend to stimulate an ailing economy, either. All parties commit to free market economies and Labour handled it best, but liberal economies can only deliver imperfect societies at the best of times. The people of New Labour are too personally invested in liberal economics, having gone through the anguish of abandoning socialism, but I’m hoping the future Labour party won’t be so stupid as to agree with your two parties.

    Thank Christ the Tories weren’t in power when the banks collapsed, though- dithering George Osborne may have recanted his opinion that the banks should have been left to fall but that would be no good if he had been in power at the time, instituting his opinion of the time.

  • “build a real economy”

    Yeah, well done Mike for doing that in the last thirteen years.

    Of course, next you’re going to tell us that the Labour party that we ought to be supporting is the Labour party that you wouldn’t agree with when it was in government oh no certainly not. Yet we should still vote for it anyway. Troll.

  • May I express an opinion based on many many years as a close observer of government and politics (the first general election I followed closely was in 1964), since then I have voted variously Labour, Liberal and Liberal Democrat, LibDem last May. In the light my past observations, I have not a shred of doubt that this last general election was by far the most disgraceful piece of non-democracy that I have witnessed. The Liberal Democrat leader garnered thousands if not millions of votes for policies he himself disagreed with, but, undaunted, he used them go gain votes nonetheless. The Conservative leader never campaigned on a big “cuts’ and “roll back the state” platform, but that is patently what he (and Mr Clegg) had in mind. Neither the Tories nor the LibDems have a shred of a mandate for these cuts, with their inevitably bigger effect on the poorer amongst us. If Clegg and Cameron are sure of their support, then they should call a “cuts” general election. I would suggest neither of them have the simple courage to do that. What exactly did I vote for? Was it ‘grown-up politics’ whereby politicians say one thing to get elected and do something different when in office, or is that “old” politics (sometimes referred to as “lying”)? Did I vote for ‘new politics’ whereby politicians say one thing to get elected and do something different when in office? Did I vote for a ‘phased reduction in the deficit’ or a car crash economics policy? Did I vote LibDem or Tory? – I honestly can’t tell the difference any more. Did I vote for Mr Clegg as he appears in TV election broadcasts or did I vote for the real Mr Clegg? (ditto the rest of the LibDem MPs). In the words of the marvellous Pete Townsend…. “won’t get fooled again”, and that goes for millions more ex-LibDem supporters, including now Mr Colin Firth”.

  • …..I would also add, before the inevitable accusations, that I am not a “Labour Troll”. At the last election I was an enthusiastic LibDem voter, I am now an ex -LibDem voter. I believe that the dyed-in-the-wood LibDemers on this site are so used to being the “nice guys” of British politics they just cannot stomach very serious (but fair) criticism – hence the much-used “Troll” accusation. Libdems, you must really face up to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, many respectable, decent voters hold your party and its MPs and especially your leader, in huge contempt.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

    No recent comment found.