On Saturday, the first big Lib Dem election rally took place. The main subject was our policy of providing free childcare to children from 9 months of age – which will make life so much easier for families. What was really good is that this event was family friendly. Babies, toddlers, teenagers were in the audience including Jo’s own two sons.
The speeches were punctuated with toddler babble. It was a joy.
Jo and Layla spoke.
Watch here:
Layla remarked that she had never known such a friendly reaction on the doorstep.
She exposed the Tory idea that this election could get Brexit done as the fiction it is. The only way to stop us talking about it and future trade deals for years to come is to make it stop.
As a teacher, she was keen to talk about how we would be spending a billion on children’s centres to help reduce inequalities between the poorest and richest children. We would also triple the funds available to help disadvantaged children in school
We have to do better for the next generation, said Jo. You could hear the emotion in her voice as she recounted her conversations with teenagers about the lack of mental health provision.
She slated the Government’s plans to charge EU workers for coming to work in our NHS. The tax on nurses is cruel, heartless and stupid.
We can choose, she said, to be open and generous, not closed and selfish.
She added that leaving the EU will not help those who are struggling and it won’t change our planet. That is why a Lib Dem Government will revoke Article 50 on Day 1.
One of the driving forces behind the new free childcare policy is to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
It was a great rally and proof that Jo Swinson is the best candidate for Prime Minister on offer.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social



6 Comments
I would love to listen but the link doesn’t work!
While I agree the future is for the young I would like to hear a bit more of the Lib Dems plans for caring for our elderly going forward, as one of that generation it would be of considerable interest as, I am sure, it would be for others. The mark of a open tolerant country is judged by how well it treats all it’s citizens!!
I’ve just looked it up Barry, and I gather it’s to “demand better”, and to “put a penny in income tax to meet immediate priorities in social care, reverse cuts to public health, and invest in mental health”. The familiar penny would raise about £ 5 billion to share between all these sectors.
Interestingly, last May, the Conservative-dominated County Councils Network (CCN) ahead of the promised government public spending review says that without extra funding, rising demand for social care will see council finances “plunged into disarray” and services cut to legal minimum levels. They predicted that, “English councils risk insolvency if government does not move rapidly to fill a £50bn funding black hole opening up in local authority budgets, in large part because of the spiralling cost of paying for services for vulnerable older adults and children”.
Would it be possible to post this video on You Tube or the main Lib Dem website, as I can’t play it on my PC or I-Pad?
I was able to play the video but had no sound. I use Linux Mint same result on my laptop with Win. 10.
The closure of Sure Start centres and the fall in resources for those that remain demonstrates the problems of looking at problems in isolation and the flawed thinking that comes from different departments having different budgets that must be managed.
Councils have faced great challenges and the closure of Sure Start centres is one example of what I mean. If one is taking into account only financial savings, ( which I would not), one saves money on one budget but the actual cost to the public purse of that saving is greater than the saving.
Research by the he Institute of Fiscal studies found that Sure Start centres significantly reduced the incidence of children under eleven years of age needing hospital admission. This was particularly the case in disadvantaged areas, with relatively little advantage in wealthier areas. Some Sure start closures were in wealthier areas, but 170 were in the poorest 30% areas.
I believe that when government and local government allocate resources which will always be rationed to some degree, , it should be evidence based so that whatever the allocation it should be targeted at areas where maximum benefit is achieved. Universal provision may have a place in some instances, but not all.