In an article for the Times Red Box, Tim Farron points out the huge differences between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat visions for the future:
The contrast between the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the Conservative one couldn’t be starker. We would extend free school lunches to all primary school children and invest an extra £7 billion in schools and colleges, to make sure funding rises in line with both inflation and pupil numbers. Instead, Theresa May wants to take free school lunches away from 1.9 million children to fund her obsession with grammar schools.
Our manifesto commits to capping the cost of social care — something we legislated for in the coalition, but which the Conservatives have refused to implement. We’ll also establish a cross-party health and social care commission, to integrate services and make them sustainable for the long term. In her manifesto, Theresa May has ditched the cap on costs, replacing it with plans to hit the elderly with a “death tax” charged against their homes. Many elderly people will face the cruel situation of having to sell their home when they die to pay for the cost of their care.
This is what the Lib Dems offer:
Theresa May is taking voters for granted. That’s why she’s refusing to spell out the tax rises and extra borrowing her government will conduct. And it’s why she didn’t even turn up to last night’s debate. It was an insult to every voter in the country, denying them the opportunity to see her challenged on her extreme version of Brexit and the heartless policies in her manifesto.
Fortunately, you don’t have to settle for Theresa May’s cynical and mean-spirited agenda. This election is a chance to choose a brighter future. By voting for a Liberal Democrat MP on June 8, you can help ensure that there is a strong and effective opposition to the Tories. By voting for the Liberal Democrats, you can change Britain’s future.
You can read the whole article here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
14 Comments
Also the difference between us and Labour, ie defence row today for example. Whatever you do Mr Farron stop talking about Europe, Brexit and the Referendum.
I agree. Stop talking about the EU and referendums and talk about everyday concerns.
Farron seems to have lost the plot. Forget Brexit in this campaign (it can’t be reversed) and focus on what matters in people’s daily lives. Stop proposing stupid policies, like legalisation of the dangerous drug cannabis.
If the opinion poll trends continue, the Tories will still win a landslide, Labour will be a respectable second (with 200+ seats) and the LDs will do even worse than in 2015, down to no more than 2 seats with 5-6% of the GB national vote share.
The electorate know we can’t reverse Brexit however much we may regret it. It’s a matter now of lib dem credibility.
Daodao
I have always said we must not be seen as the prostitutes, prisoners and potheads party, and should agree with you but on the detail , do not !
The legalisation of cannabis is a sensible policy, evidence based. The referendum on the deal is a sensible policy intelligence based!
Yet you and David Raw are correct, it is about where the main focus is .
For too long too few of us, but some of us have, are saying and strongly, the Brexit issue us or should be , about how, not if, and even so, talked about only once a day not ten thousand times !
I believe some updates are needed for economic policies. None of the main parties proposed an economic policy that strongly push for export, which means Libdem should do it. Pursuing such policy would break the status quo in economic approach. Our perennial trade deficit acts as a drag on GDP, and is the major cause of our indebtedness. This is not just about trade surplus or deficit (although achieving trade balance is a necessary task), but CONSENSUS agrees that firms that actively involve in export trade and international competition are normally much more COMPETITIVE.
Next, the allowance for entrepreneurs should be extended from 6 months to a full year, at least for strategic sectors (well, kebab kiosks should not receive such allowances). The reason is that the second year, not the first, is normally the toughest year for startups.
Then, a strategy to develop regional manufacturing supply chain to reduce dependency on imported components should be prioritized. For example, a plan to develop a renewable energy sector must be together with another plan that aim to foster the indigenous production of support equipment rather than importing them. For manufacturing industries like car or pharma, the value-added would be much greater if the input and intermediate components are mainly domestically sourced.
After than, the party must explain how much they would expand the British Business Bank’s capitalization (20 billion, 10 billion, or…500 million???, well, 10 billion is significant but 500 million means nothing).
And it is really disappointed that Libdem never mention EU anti-dumping tariff on Chinese steel when campaigning for EU.
Anyway, the four policies above would make Libdem economic strategy far more radical than the rest without making the party look like spending thrift like Corbyn.
Finally, put the cannabis behind, but focus strongly on the repeal of internet snooper charter, which IMO is a blatant violation of civil liberty.
Oh, wait, please leave Corbyn alone now, that’s enough. Just focus on Conkip.
A lot of us seem to have fallen for Mays nonsense about the Irreversability of Brexit. Assuming that we leave The EU in 2019 we can rejoin in 2022, at the latest. The leavers never gave up, why should we ?
Oh wait, we can actually adopt a rather populist strategy regarding foreign takeover law. Promising to tighten foreign takeover law would allow us to gain support from “nationalists”, who are concerned about the fact that various key British assets had been bought up by foreigners. This strategy should be very effective since May had actually gone U-turn when talking about foreign takeovers by selling off Green Investment Bank. But, why not renationalizing the GIB, a Libdem legacy? This really disappoints me.
Oh, and putting cannabis behind does not mean abandoning it, but just put other issues beyond it.
theakes – come on there little difference between LibDems and Labour on defence too. Both parties have a sizeable proportion of supports that would keep an nuclear deterrent whilst working to disarm naturally and a large group who would say get rid now. Both parties have wrestled with how to deal with this.
But this is more like it from Tim Farron- highlight the Tories dreadful policies. Go for it – all parties. Relentlessly
Paul, it seems to me to be bad politics to be pressing for reentry to the EU before we have left. Not knowing what the exit terms will be and knowing that reentry will be without any of the opt-outs we enjoyed previously. The present battle is over the exit terms. One bridge at a time.
Yes, well, Nom de Plume – that’s why Paul B’s initial thought, ie that the Article 50 decision should be regarded as reversible is correct. Once we have left we will never again have membership on such advantageous terms financially. And anyway, why are we failing to argue the other convincing case on membership? That is to say that with ever more international problems, and acknowledging the primacy of democracy as a system of governance, that we need a democratic supranational framework to work within. Yes, these words are cumbersome, but with so much more globalisation, and problems such as climate change, we desperately need to be working together more.
AND, of course, we need and must have, supranational rules and regulations to ensure we stay on track for a safer world in which a huge population can live. It was all very well with 19th Century population levels continuing with the old system, but Brexit currently is simply not sustainable. We must continue arguing for it – for goodness sake, don’t give up now, guys!
Don’t fall into the trap of fighting yesterday’s battle. There may be a theoretical, legal possibility of reversing Article 50, but I see no inclination either on the side of the Tories or the EU to reverse it. You may simply be alienating some voters by seeming to want to rerun the referendum. There is an election in less than month. The emphasis needs to be correct. Plenty of opportunities to point out the failings of Brexit afterwards, if we have any MPs.
@ Nom de Plume: “if we have any MPs”
Sadly, there is a significant risk, if current poll trends continue, of there being fewer than 6 LD MPs after 8/6/17. Even in the nadir of the Liberal party between 1951 and 1974, the number of Liberal MPs never dropped below 6.
Some here urge Tim to stop talking about Brexit. It could be argued that he is not talking about it enough, if he wants to attract the estimated 22% still opposed to leaving.
This is from Nick Robinson’s Election Takeaway today:
“This split means that parties like the Liberal Democrats, which have promised a second EU referendum, have a far smaller pool of voters to fish in than many suggest – just 22% of Hard Remainers to be precise.
They have another problem too if my group in Bedford is representative.
Those who wanted a second referendum had no idea that that was Lib Dem policy, and not one of them could name the Lib Dem leader – “I don’t know who he is,” says Leela. And yet three of my group had voted for the party in an election for the local mayor.”