Welcome to my day: 15 January 2018 – more experiments in moderation?

So, I find myself splashing about in the turbulent waters of Liberal Democrat Voice again on another Monday morning. At least this week, the waters aren’t frozen, as I’m back in the country after two weeks in the United States.

On the moderation front, we’re still in mid-experiment as I understand it, so do bear with us. I do find myself wondering whether or not moderation should be more transparent. For example, comments could be edited to take out the off-topic, discourteous or simply rude bits, with some explanation of why. It might be a lot of work though, and it does require a thick skin…

So, what have we got for you today?

We start with some proposals for reform of the European Union, courtesy of Rob Wheway, a name which might be familiar to some of our older readers, but also to devotees of Lord Bonkers.

There is also coverage of last week’s Government defeat on an amendment to the Data Protection Bill requiring the establishment of part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. And yes, I didn’t pick it up when previewing last week’s events in the Lords…

Nick Hopkinson gives us his thoughts on what is needed to fight and win a second/third referendum, and later on in the afternoon, our very own MP for Bath, Wera Hobhouse, writes on the democratic principles that underpin the call for another referendum.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Peter Martin 15th Jan '18 - 9:15am


    You’d be welcome to use any of my recently rejected contributions as examples of the sort of comments which are no longer welcome. Whatever else I may be accused of I’m never accused of any personal discourtesy, so I would be interested to know why I’m now starting to be treated as PNG.

    You’ve said that it is acceptable to offer a non-party-line view. I’m starting to wonder about that!

    I don’t know why I’m bothering to write this! If recent previous experience is anything to go by, it won’t get through 🙂

  • Mark, I would support what Peter Martin has said. Many of my posts since the new system was introduced have been deleted and when I asked for an explanation on where it failed on the new criteria, my request was rejected by the editor on the grounds of lack of time.

    In essence the main criteria seems to be when you disagree or point out a flaw in an article posted by one of the management team. Not because of any unpleasantness or off topic.

    As in the case of Peter Martin, I would also be willing to have my recently rejected posts looked at. As a lifelong member of the party and the Liberal party before that, it would be interesting to find out what is wrong with my traditional radical liberalism.

  • Stephen Hesketh 16th Jan '18 - 1:59pm

    As someone whose comments are on permanent pre-moderation – but whose comments going back approximately 2 years have all been accepted and published in full – I would like to propose that sanctions are time limited.

    I am happy to acknowledge that a particular in response I made to a David Laws article was OTT – indeed I did so when a fellow contributor pulled me up at the time for “playing the man not the ball”.

    I should also like to support the call for greater transparency. I suspect it is the lack of this that causes some of the writer/editor conflict rather than the decision itself. Thank you.

  • Malcolm Todd 16th Jan '18 - 2:03pm

    I’m intrigued by the above comments. My own experience has been that I can (and often do) post fairly trenchant criticisms of the LD party line and of posts by LDV editors, even laced at times with a soupcon of sarcasm; and yet, I can’t remember the last time a post of mine was rejected, and on the rare occasions when they’ve gone into modera*ion it’s been for obvious technical reasons. So I’ve tended to assume that those who complain about having comments rejected are simply a little deaf to their own tone. Yet I find it hard to imagine that Peter Martin could be guilty of anything construable as personal abuse or even snarkiness, unless he has a completely different persona for posting rejectable comments from the patient, intellectually rigorous dissident whose contributions almost invariably elevate discussion. What gives?

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 ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 21st Aug - 6:50pm
    "Agreed Joe. What’s more shocking is the complete absence of any bold statement of the party standing for civil liberties and free speech. " Not...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 21st Aug - 5:59pm
    Don’t worry folks. After Brexit the U.K. is going to become an exporting “Super Power”. Who says so? Why, none other than a certain Dr...
  • User AvatarNeil Sandison 21st Aug - 5:24pm
    Having been through a few recessions with governments of different political hues all have put the brakes on at times of fiscal crisis .The only...
  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 21st Aug - 5:10pm
    In order to bring in the freedom theme and the logo how about "Lib Dems - Free as a bird"
  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 21st Aug - 4:52pm
    I strongly agree with Joe Otten. Plus it's worth pointing out that Lib Dems were in office from 2010-2015, not just the Conservatives. We should...
  • User AvatarJohn Barrett 21st Aug - 4:29pm
    Paul - That was a quote from Roland that I was commenting on. I just assumed that was correct. Maybe that's a dangerous thing to...