The Voice is only a success because of the interest and support from our readers. For many people just lurking and reading the site is all they want to do – and that’s fine, we’re grateful for people taking the time to read the site.
You can though help us continue to produce interesting content for a growing audience. Here are four simple ways:
1. Let us have your tips for stories. Perhaps there’s something outrageous going on in your local council? Or you’re an expert in a particular area and have spotted a story other people have missed? Or you’ve seen some news no-one else is mentioning? Just drop us an email at [email protected]. We also welcome photos for our photo library.
2. Share our content with other people. Like a story you see on the site? If so, please let your friends know about it. Whether it is by sharing it on Facebook, sending a tweet, adding a link from your blog, saving it on a social networking site or anything else – the more people share good stories, the wider the audience they reach.
3. Donate. We keep our costs to a minimum, but our hosting costs have gone up as our traffic has grown, and any additional funds beyond that can go on better Conference activities and more internet advertising to promote our site and stories.
4. Write for us. What’s on your mind at the moment? Do you think you have a solution for a problem that nobody else has put forward? What do you think the party at local, regional or national level should be doing?
You can read our guidelines for contributors in full here, but here’s a short excerpt:
Contributions to the blog should be up to c.750 words – though this is advisory, not mandatory – and should be sent to [email protected]. If your post is too long, readership drops off quite sharply so there is a real advantage to brevity.
For guest posts we normally ask that they are original and to be published first on this site, though we are happy for you subsequently to post a copy elsewhere with a link back to the original.
If you refer to organisations, quotes, other online articles or evidence to back up your argument, please do include relevant links in your post.
Please state your affiliation to the Liberal Democrat party – ie, if you’re a member / activist / councillor, etc. and any short description that you would like us to use. This can include a weblink, such as to your own website or blog.
The site’s success is down to far more than just The Voice’s team. Readers like yourself are a keep part of our success. If you’re already doing any of these four – many thanks. And if not, why not try one of them this month?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
The 'Silk Road' is a myth: Trade with the East went by sea and India was at its heart
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
15 Comments
I used to comment here about 2-3 years ago. I came across this post by chance, I normally no longer look at the site.
I make these comments for what they are worth.
I remember giving up when the site admin introduced what seemed to be a lot of bureaucratic restrictions. I can’t remember the details but it was the last straw for me.
I enjoyed the contributions from Tom Arms.
I am not a Lib Dem but I respected that much of the site content would relate to Lib Dem news. I accept that, but it left rather thin content of a general nature.
I always felt uneasy that moderation was too close to censorship.
Having said that, I rather enjoyed having good debates. These were the few threads that were lengthy as a consequence of the debates. I am now beginning to remember that site admin seemed anxious to stop such debates. I never did understand the logic of that because debate is surely the life of the site and sterile posts with half a dozen comments is surely a sign that the site is dying?
These are just comments in passing. I wish all involved success.
@Peter – as a member of the LDV team I welcome your feedback. But I would say that your claim that “site admin seemed anxious to stop such debates” is completely wrong! We want to encourage debate and that means making sure that it is a safe space for anyone who wants to contribute. So we ask people to avoid personal attacks. Sadly some commenters don’t seem to recognise how offensive they can be – and of course aggressive comments shut down any rational debate.
Do please add your comments to get a debate going.
I welcome Mary Reid’s exhortation here; she has given me useful advice in the past. But I find I have been excluded from debate in LDV, without explanation either explicit or implicit. Is it because I took up the challenge, made over a year ago to LDV readers, to come up with a Big Idea for the Lib Dems?
I tried — and I confess failed — to seize the fact that no-one, anywhere, in any party, seems to have noticed that Proportional Representation is on its way. We owe this partly to Boris Johnson, of course. But no-one in our party seems to have any interest, during the focus on the coming General Election, in anything that may follow it!
Surely any ‘Big Idea’ from now on must be one that takes the lead before another party does? We must alert our United Kingdom to the inevitability of PR fairly soon. And we must recognise that PR is not merely a fairer way to choose a Parliament: it will be a Parliament in which everything will be DIFFERENT. And it is up to the Lib Dems to ensure that the the difference is to the Good. The Big Idea is that the Lob Dems get going NOW , and lead the UK to a successful PR government in which Liberal ideas — such as a National Income Dividend — predominate.
@Mary
While I understand your stated position on this, my experience matches Peter’s and even innocuous and factual comments were moderated out if they didn’t fit a particular narrative.
Slightly more disturbing and contrary to the ‘safe space’ comment you make has been articles that have been a direct attack on members who hold specific views, to which comments asking for clarity were also moderated.
If you want to save LDV and make it a place of genuine debate, perhaps a look at the way moderation was used to silence and suppress some debate and find a way to live with opinions that are uncomfortable – as ling as they are not offensive (and I don’t mean they simply disagree or contradict a specific point) or abusive.
Are comments on here being moderated out?
@Dave – no, we are not moderating out all comments. We have had rather a lot of trolling lately, including some comments that could verge on libellous, so we are being very cautious at the moment and putting most posts on pre-moderation.
Apologies if that means you have to wait until one of us is free to moderate.
@Mary
My personal experience here and in other Party-controlled fora, supports the comments made by Peter, Roger Lake, and Andrew. As a party we are rapidly becoming like Labour with a rigidly-imposed top-down message discipline which leaves no room for even civilised disagreement as any adverse comment is treated as if it is a personal attack and there is no appeal or even explanation of an anonymous moderator’s decision. As one of the team running LDV, you have the right to set whatever rules you like, but you must accept that those rules are turning it into an echo chamber.
I can’t go back over specifics but would make a couple of points.
1. We don’t publish all the potential posts that are sent to us. Please don’t take it personally if we don’t publish. Sometimes we turn a post down because a topic has already been well covered, or because the post is muddled, inaccurate or incomplete, or because it really isn’t something we want to cover. And some are just too long or difficult to understand.
2. At times comments do tend to be dominated by some loud voices. These deter others from joining in. We want to encourage good healthy debate but that doesn’t happen unless there is a good mix of people participating.
3. We do remove any comments which could be understood as personal attacks on other members/contributors.
“At times comments do tend to be dominated by some loud voices. These deter others from joining in.”
I know what you mean. Some threads end up as a lengthy economics dialogue between a couple of people.
Does it imply a possible need to limit the number of comments made by any one contributor in a thread with already a lot of comments – and to give participants some idea of what that limit is?
This used to be such a terrific site, and for years I was a regular contributor. Sadly it has become a shadow of its former self. I only check it very rarely now and hardly ever comment.
The reason is that you have chosen to exclude dissenting opinion on the party’s trans policy. All debate completely shut down. I have no problem with you excluding abusive posts but even reasoned and respectful posts on the issue get automatically blocked just because they don’t support the party line.
As a result any stories you about the issue get a boringly uniform list of ‘I agree’ comments with no dissent at all, which is pure suppression and also gives a misleading picture of true opinion in the party.
If you want to revive the site you need to remember that the whole point of a site like this is to promote discussion, yes even on ‘difficult’ issues. And that means allowing alternative points of view.
Your supposedly inclusive editorial policy now EXCLUDES people who have legitimate concerns about one particular area of policy, and as long as you’re doing that, I’m out.
I am not a member of any party and, indeed, I am not sure how I will vote at the next election. That said, I enjoy reading articles posted on this site and feel in tune with contributors more often that I feel I fundamentally disagree. I try to make comments that are relevant to points made. I have noticed a large proportion of my recent posts have not been published and I don’t really understand why.
@TonyH – Liberal debate is not the same as libertarian debate. There are still choices to be made about what constitutes a positive contribution to a discussion.
It is true that gender critical believers are not happy with the Lib Dem position on trans issues. LDV is not “toeing the party line” but equally it does not have to give airspace to views that cause huge hurt to trans people. And that’s what it’s about, not an academic argument but real hurt to real people who feel that their identity is being denied.
Mary
You say gender-critical language hurts the feelings of trans people.
What about the feelings of LGB people, who feel like we’re being completely erased at the moment?
Or the feelings of de-transitioners, whose lives were ruined by treatment based on ideology rather than need (Have you actually read the Cass report??)
And what about the feelings of LibDem members of 30+ year standing who aren’t allowed to express our views in any party forum, and who read on your site that we’re bigots/Nazis/fascists who should get thrown out of the party?
Because, Newsflash: Feelings are not exclusive to trans people. They can get bruised when you talk about any subject. Closing down discussion is not the answer. The answer, for Liberals, is the opposite: Engage. Talk. Inform, Persuade, and yes Listen.
However, LDV has based its editorial policy on the principle that ANY gender-critical statement, no matter how carefully and kindly worded, is by definition an attack on trans people. You’re entitled to do that of course, but please:
1. don’t say that you are being ‘inclusive’. You are excluding – and insulting – tens of thousands of party members. LDV is certainly not a ‘safe space’ for us.
2. don’t imagine that you’re not hurting people’s feelings, because you are.
3. don’t pretend that LDV is a good representation of how the party thinks, because it isn’t. It used to, but not any more.
For me, contributions from some individuals on every topic under the sun becomes a bore.
I am reminded of a councillor who I helped get elected many years ago. He was bright, he had an opinion on everything, he contributed to almost all the debates.
But as one of his colleagues observed – “because he speaks on every topic, people have started to switch off. If he chose to intervene on specific matters I’m sure councillors would be much more inclined to listen to him”.
Graham Jeffs “For me, contributions from some individuals on every topic under the sun becomes a bore.”
I wonder if such contributions stand out simply because there are fewer contributions overall, and not because those prominent contributors have discouraged others.
I don’t have any statistics, so this is based purely on the impression I get from LDV, but when I first started visiting this site c. 2012, it seemed there were quite a few such prominent people who posted on a variety of topics (though often with a pet peeve! 😉 ), but it felt like part of a much broader and more active set of discussions within a larger community.
To be fair, and the stats might disprove my perception, I don’t know if this reflects an issue with the site, or if it is just that it is a long time since the Lib Dems have been interesting. 🙁