General Election - June 8th

Vince Cable is 74 years old, Corbyn is 68, John McDo0nnell is 66 and Diane Abbot is 64. They're all past their "Best Before" date.

How to confuse Vincent....ask the average age of the quartet

I guess it is only fair that we see one of the Tory ministers get their sums wrong in the weeks leading up to the election.

Mind you if you give a 17 year old who is moving to the uk in 2 days a suitcase and ask her to pack her fave clothes upto 23 kilos 1st attempt more like 63

I see that the Tories are accusing Labour of having a big black hole in their finances relating to their manifesto released yesterday.

Seems to me that the party who releases their manifesto last has an advantage over the other party's as they can tweak their manifesto accordingly.

Maybe all party manifestos should be released at the same time to be fair to all of the political party's.

If "Labour can consider it a success if they get 200 seats" on June the 8th", according to Len McCluskey

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccluskey-jeremy-corbyn-labour-general-election-2017/

...why on earth did Corbyn, currently sitting on 229 seats, agree to the snap election?

It is almost a definition of political incompetence.

I don't think JC had a choice, in theory any opposing political party should always welcome a General Election, people would have just said that JC was running scared if he had voted against the election.

"Hobson's Choice" really, don't we just love that term

For your reading pleasure, here is the Libdem Manifesto:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto?utm_campaign=manifesto17_4a&utm_medium=email&utm_source=libdems

Is Labour even trying to win any seats, let alone win the General Election? If so, then why are all its front bench spokesmen so incompetant? First there was Diane Abbott who thought she could recruit ten thousand Police Officers and pay them £8 a year - and yesterday got herself lost on stage at the Police Federation conference. Next up Angela Rayner (education) who doesn't know how many children her (mad) policies would affect - and what they would cost; Richard Burgon (Justice) who appeared on Newsnight last night and was completely unable to answer even basic questions but claimed he was being put 'on trial' (by Kirsty Walk) and kept banging-on about "the bigger picture… why can’t we talk about the many and not the few?". Then there's the Labour Manifesto which we were assured would be fully-costed, isn't - its nationalisation programme has not been costed at all. Not only that but analysts predict that Labour would have £58 billion black hole in their finances.

Hammond may not be an ideal Chancellor - indeed he may be replaced - but at least he isn't setting-out to deliberately bankrupt the economy.

Other than your party's stance on Europe, I see little to object to. But I think you will regret retaining the pensions triple-lock and that undertaking may lose you support from younger voters who will have to pay.

Here's a link to the Adobe Acrobat (PDF) version.

Its a pity Farron is hitting the news for different reasons today, I do think its a little unfair that the story has emerged today of him being against abortion, the article is 10 years old and should not have been aired today in my view.

Good luck with your doorstep challenge putting your manifesto across to the electorate

From what I see in the news the young people have abandoned the Lib Dems, I'm not sure why the Lib Dems are targeting them.

Thanks. We differ on Europe of course.

I do favour the pensions triple lock, but then a favour a Scandinavian style economy in the first place!

I think we should post our own little manifestos , I agree with the triple lock, we should look after our elderly and why not, if we need to be taxed a little more to pay for it then so be it.

I don't understand why the Lib Dem's are so determined to legalise controlled drugs.

• End imprisonment for possession of illegal drugs for personal use....
• ...permit cannabis to be sold through licensed outlets to adults over the age of 18.
• Repeal the Psychoactive Substances Act which has driven the sale of formerly legal highs underground.

Do they see the future of our country as being one massive pot party.
Where the PM lights up a spliff before delivering a speech about the future of the UK.
And formerly "legal highs" are once again freely available on our streets?

For two reasons. First, as a matter of Liberal theory, people should be free to harm themselves as long as they do not harm others.

"....the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign"

"...the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection"


JS Mill. "On Liberty"

Second, as a matter of practical government, making drugs illegal has not worked. The drugs business is very profitable because it is illegal. This puts lots of money in the hands of bad people. There is a parallel with Prohibition in the USA.

I would rather see cannabis sold legally in a safe form than have it sold furtively, at much higher prices, in unsafe forms

I'm guessing it is included in the Lib Dem manifesto to get the youngsters interested, hardly an election winner but it will at least make the news and give the Lib Dems some much needed publicity as their election campaign is stalling from what I hear on the news.

No problem with that and, whilst we're at it, let's make people personally responsible for the consequences of their lifestyle choices. That means that medical treatment for drugs-related illnesses and conditions - as well as arising out of obseity and alcohol abuse - would continue to be available from the NHS but cease to be free. And the tariff for any crimes committed whilst under the influence of alcohold or drugs be automatically doubled. With freedoms come responsibilities!

The polling organisation Populus today released the results of a public perception poll of the four main party leaders:

​

​

​

​

I'd say that that was a fair description of the political leaders, may not be good reading for a lot of people but a good reflection for sure, in my view.