The Voice has covered the succession of positive reasons to vote for the Liberal Democrats given in recent days by The Observer, Polly Toynbee, The Guardian and The Independent, so it seems only fitting to top that list today with a reminder of the party’s own choice of words (from europe.libdems.org.uk):
The European Parliament election is a big choice for Britain.
Labour’s arrogance has messed up Britain’s relationship with other European countries
The Conservatives and UKIP think that on its own Britain can face the economic storm, climate change, international crime, people-trafficking and terrorism
Liberal Democrats know effective cooperation creates prosperity – more than 3 million jobs in the UK depend on trade with other EU countries.
Liberal Democrats are working with our European neighbours to protect Britain and catch terrorists and criminals who operate across national borders.
Liberal Democrats know that countries have to work together to tackle climate change.
Vote Liberal Democrat and make a difference.
The manifesto contains an extensive section on how we would make Europe work better, including:
Spend Better, Crack Down on Fraud: Liberal Democrats want to see tougher controls on EU countries and the EU itself for the management of EU money. Both countries and EU institutions should be named, shamed and fined for repeat offences – for example the Rural Payments Agency for England and Wales has a poor track record of using EU funds. The EU must also end unnecessary spending on the organisation of the EU institutions themselves. Scrapping the European Parliament’s monthly move to Strasbourg and basing it permanently in Brussels would save around €200m a year. We do not see the need, in the current context, for any significant growth in the budget’s size, nor the abolition of the British rebate. But the EU budget is in urgent need of wholesale reform so that money is spent only on the things the EU really needs to do and there is a more rational system for contributions by member states. This means in particular further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
More Democracy, Stronger Parliaments: We want those who are elected, such as MEPs and MPs, to have greater power so that EU institutions can be held properly to account. That is why we support the Lisbon Treaty which gives extra powers for national parliaments to scrutinise and object to EU proposals. Because protecting our civil liberties is a priority for Liberal Democrats, we want the democratic European Parliament to have the power to scrutinise and amend EU justice and home affairs agreements such as on data protection, privacy and fundamental legal rights. We also seek greater involvement for ministers from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales at European meetings where there are clear advantages, such as farming and fisheries policy…
Holding MEPs to Account: Liberal Democrat MEPs have been at the forefront of the campaign to reform the European Parliament. It was our MEPs who blew the whistle on the lack of openness and malpractice. Many of the reforms we have argued for will come into effect in July 2009. Liberal Democrats expect the highest standards of public service and honesty from all our representatives. That is why all Liberal Democrat MEPs and candidates have signed a binding Code of Conduct on the use of their parliamentary allowances. This includes making public the names of all staff, including family members, and strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the European Parliament rules. We expect all other MEPs to do the same. We will continue to work to reform MEPs expenses, ensure transparency and end the abuses that have undermined public confidence.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Ongoing huge cost of Brexit divorce
The Liberal Song, with Jo Grimond on the B-side
jamine.4.t: Elephant
nigel hunter
Nonconformistradical
Joe Otten
Andy Hyde
22 Comments
In my area the party is pushing the following as one of three reasons to vote Lib Dem in the European elections (the other two being the Gurkhas and Tory MPs claiming for second homes):
Labour are out of the race … To keep the Conservatives out, vote Lib Dem – voting Labour will only help the Conservatives win!
Can anyone explain how this works in the London euro-constituency?
Lovely.
Here’s the reason why I [i]won’t[/i] be voting Lib Dem:
These are Euro elections, and Europe is the one issue where I totally disagree with party policy.
I haven’t decided who I [i]will[/i] vote for yet, or even whether I’ll vote at all. That’ll probably depend on what happens to affect my mood between now and knocking-off time.
@Iainm:
Do you disagree with LibDem policy *on* Europe or LibDem policy *in* Europe? If it’s a Lisbon referendum you’re after, or opposition to joining the euro ever (I’m more or less with you on that one if so) or other changes in our relationship with Europe, you shouldn’t let these govern your choice today. All of these are issues decided by discussion between national governments and in principle irrelevant to choice of party for the European Parliament.
here’s a very good reason NOT to vote lib dem –
http://adrianshort.co.uk/2009/05/15/418/
pretty desperate, even for the Limp Dims – and probably very close to being illegal under electoral law.
It’s not as simple as that. Politicians may all complain that too many people vote according to domestic issues during EU elections, but you know very well that those same politicians will treat any good showing in a euro election as a vindication of their party’s national policies in general and its European policies in particular, with no distinction made between ‘in’ and ‘on’. And as far as the Lib Dems go, I just can’t sign up to that.
“here’s a very good reason NOT to vote lib dem –
http://adrianshort.co.uk/2009/05/15/418/”
This is precisely the point I was raising.
I have seen this kind of thing defended on the basis that no matter how misleading the material may be, it is not actually untrue.
But to say that “voting Labour will only help the Conservatives win” in an election under a proportional system – and in a European constituency in which the Lib Dems came third last time – clearly is untrue.
Mark Pack,
Your manifesto says, “Liberal Democrats expect the highest standards of public service and honesty from all our representatives.”
I received a leaflet from my Lib Dem MP, Paul Burstow, which said: “Labour are out of the race in Sutton. To keep the Conservatives out, vote Lib Dem – voting Labour will only help the Conservatives win!”
Could you explain or defend these statements? Paul Burstow is the Lib Dem chief whip and I would very much like him to abide by the highest standards of public life too. He’s not telling the truth, is he?
Summer, Buddy Holly, the working folly
Good golly Miss Molly and boats
Hammersmith Palais, the Bolshoi Ballet
Jump back in the alley and nanny goats
18-wheeler Scammels, Domenecker camels
All other mammals plus equal votes
Seeing Piccadilly, Fanny Smith and Willy
Being rather silly, and porridge oats
A bit of grin and bear it, a bit of come and share it
You’re welcome, we can spare it – yellow socks
Too short to be haughty, too nutty to be naughty
Going on 40 – no electric shocks
The juice of the carrot, the smile of the parrot
A little drop of claret – anything that rocks
Elvis and Scotty, days when I ain’t spotty,
Sitting on the potty – curing smallpox
I think Bridget’s email quoted in the comment on your blog gives a good explanation Adrian. I also think it’s reasonable to refer to other elections to make a point about how, for example, the Lib Dems do well in elections – because it’s one way to support our arguments against those who said “I like what the Lib Dems stand for, and I’d vote for you if other people vote for you too.”
Mark
The question is, is it true that voting Labour in London in the European elections “will only help the Conservatives win”?
From your post, I’m not clear whether your answer is “Yes” or “No”.
Mark,
Are Labour “out of the race”? If so, how?
How does voting Labour help the Conservatives win?
Incidentally Mark, if the Lib Dems “do well in elections” how did they come third place in London in the 2004 elections behind the Conservatives and Labour?
Will they still be “doing well” if they come fourth behind UKIP too?
That bit you’re quoting Adrian follows straight on from a sentence that talks about “Sutton”. What seems to me a shame is that not only do you disagree on whether “Sutton” means “Sutton”, but judging from your earlier comments, you think that people who disagree on you for this should be liable to a conviction under the law. That’s taking one heck of a leap – saying that it’s impossible for someone to reasonably take a different view from your view of the meaning, and not only that – but it would be so awful for someone to take a different view from you, that it should be against the law. (I know you’ve since blogged that you recognise it isn’t against the law – but your earlier sentiments to me clearly read that you wished it were against the law.)
You’ve also had responses – such as the Bridget Fox email quoted on your blog and indeed in other comments both on your blog and here – but have still written, the “Lib Dems don’t want to defend their leaflets”. I struggle to see how that comment on your part is true. Have you not seen, for example, those comments on your own blog? I guess you don’t agree with those responses – and that’s your prerogative – but that doesn’t seem to me a reason to say that responses don’t exist?
It’s similar to your slightly odd complaint that no-one replied to a comment of yours on this site for several hours during the middle of the night. Was that really a reasonable objection for you to take? Just as it is really reasonable for you to say that people haven’t defended the leaflets when they have? Or for you to think that making an argument in a leaflet that isn’t inciting violence or similar should be illegal?
Mark
In your eagerness to attack Adrian Short, I think you must have missed my question.
Is it true that voting Labour in London in the European elections “will only help the Conservatives win”?
Assuming you’re referring to the same leaflet as Adrian, then (from what’s he’s quoted of it), then I don’t think your question is a relevant one due to the presence of the word “Sutton”, which makes for a different meaning than your question rests on.
Mark,
I’m sure you’re very clear that my dispute isn’t about whether “Sutton” means “Sutton” but about whether talking about how things might pan out in Sutton in the context of this election is completely misleading to the average voter. And we’re agreed that the context *is* this European election, aren’t we? These are European election leaflets, not general Lib Dem materials. Now I have said that the law should prohibit parties from making false statements intentionally designed to mislead voters. I’d like to think that many reasonable people could support such a measure. Your contention seems not on that point but on whether these are intentionally misleading statements.
Bridget Fox wrote: “…the campaign team did debate whether to include the barchart or not. On balance they did, because it is important to remind voters in Islington how close this seat is, given that a general election could come at any time. They were scrupulous to label the bar chart as relating to the General election…”
http://adrianshort.co.uk/2009/05/15/418/#comment-482
and her full leaflet is here:
http://www.thestraightchoice.org/full.php?q=96#l166
Now Ms Fox says she thinks it’s important to “remind” voters how close the Westminster seat is. That’s her choice. But my concern is that by doing so — or at very least, the way she has done so — she has completely failed to make the entirely necessary distinction between the situation in the European election at hand and the next general election which is as yet uncalled. Can you honestly tell me that the “It’s so close here” section of the leaflet doesn’t seem to be describing situation in the European election? How do we square the statement that “elections in Islington are always a close finish between the Liberal Democrats and Labour” with the truth that in the current election *in* Islington (but not for either of the Islington constituencies at Westminster) the situation is rather different with the Tories as by far the largest party in terms of both votes and seats?
It seems to me that if the best you can offer is that people will disagree on what “in Islington” or “in Sutton” means you are conceding that these leaflets are likely to mislead a very large section of the public. Honesty doesn’t require the kind of nit-picking, goalpost-shifting defence you and Ms Fox have advanced.
Would you tolerate these kinds of statements if you were buying an investment?
I’d still like you or anyone else to explain how voting Labour “in Sutton” will help the Conservatives to win. Or was that about Westminster too in the European parliament election leaflet I received today, on polling day?
If it smells it’s because it’s rotten.
Mark
“I don’t think your question is a relevant one due to the presence of the word “Sutton”, which makes for a different meaning than your question rests on.”
I can’t believe you’re serious.
This is a Good Morning leaflet, delivered on the day of the European elections.
The headings are “REMEMBER TO VOTE LIB DEM THIS THURSDAY” and “MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ON THURSDAY”.
The sentences quoted are under a heading “3 more reasons to vote Lib Dem”. They read “Labour are out of the race in Sutton. To keep the Conservatives out, vote Lib Dem – voting Labour will only help the Conservatives win!”
Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is a statement about some other election, and not the one today?
And that the recipients were intended to understand it as a statement about a different election, and not the one today?
Please do me the courtesy of giving me a proper reply. Is it true that voting Labour in London in the European elections “will only help the Conservatives win”? Is it true, or is it false?
Mark,
In addressing your point about my statement that the Lib Dems have not been prepared to defend these leaflets I have written a comment here with a full account of the official Lib Dem people I contacted about this and the responses I did — and didn’t — receive.
I hope this answers your concerns.
Mark
I assume you’ve concluded that discretion is the better part of valour.
At least you’re not willing to defend the statement in the leaflet. But I’d be more impressed if you could bring yourself to say “No, it’s not true, and they shouldn’t have said it”.
No, I went to sleep 🙂 I’ve not really got anything to add to what I’ve said before and I don’t really see the value in repeating the same again and again.
Mark
I appreciate your difficulty, but the question I’m asking is a very simple one:
Is it true that voting Labour in London in the European elections “will only help the Conservatives win”?
Surely that’s a question you can say “Yes” or “No” to?
I also have serious problems with the ‘Vote Lib Dem, or X will get in’ strategy.
Firstly, it’s essentially dishonest. With the D’Hondt system, any vote for one of the big three, and often for the Greens and UKIP and the Nats in Scotland and Wales, is not a wasted vote. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to put on ‘a vote for the Christian People’s Alliance is a vote for the Conservatives!’ because they’re not viable. But Labour and the Conservatives plainly are. So it’s dishonest – and if we are dishonest trying to get elected, we frankly don’t deserve to get in.
Secondly, it must piss a lot of voters off. You know, the group of well-educated, politically interested individuals who are more likely than any other to vote Lib Dem. I certainly would be if I got one of these leaflets through my door.
Finally, though, it reinforces the FPTP mode of thinking. Even for a PR election, many people are still thinking in terms of it being FPTP. Unconsciously, people still think of the Lib Dems as an unviable alternative – normally demonstrated by contempt for it not on policy or leadership grounds but as a joke. Doing things like this reinforces their thinking.
It’s time for someone at Cowley Street to learn that if you try to squeeze a PR election, you’re likely to be crushed.