Lib Dems are ‘extremists' who want to impose veganism, say Tories
Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, made the remark as he urged voters to back the Conservatives at the local elections next month.
The Tories are defending the majority of county council seats up for election on May 1.
Kemi Badenoch, the party's leader, warned they face an 'extremely difficult' time at the ballot box because they were last contested at the peak of their post-Covid popularity in 2021.
Mr Griffith was asked by the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg about Andy Street, the former Tory mayor of the West Midlands, urging his party not to work with Reform UK at any level.
'Well, if people want a Conservative-led council – and I think they should because they run services better, rates are lower – then they've got to vote Conservative,' he said.
'It's always been, after elections, for local councillors themselves to sort how they're going to run the local council. That won't be needed if people vote Conservative, but if that is needed then historically people have done deals on a local council level with all sorts of groups.
'I think the Liberal Democrats are quite extremist. Whenever they get into council, they want four-day weeks and veganism.
'No one should take that off the table, because those are decisions for local councillors to decide. It shouldn't get there, because people can vote Conservative.'
Asked whether he was suggesting all Lib Dems were vegan, he replied: 'Too many.'
Oxfordshire county council, which is ruled by a Lib Dem-Green coalition, has served vegan-only food at its meetings since 2023.
The council came under fire after launching a campaign website which cited advice from the Vegan Society and told residents why they should adopt a plant-based diet.
A Lib Dem source said: 'These comments are frankly a bit weird. Andrew Griffith was Treasury minister under Liz Truss when the Tories crashed the economy and sent mortgages spiralling.
'Bizarre comments'
'Voters haven't forgiven the Conservative Party for all the damage they did. Bizarre comments like this won't do anything to change that.'
Sarah Dyke, the Lib Dem MP for Glastonbury and Somerton, is among senior figures in the party to have backed calls for a reduction in meat consumption.
South Cambridgeshire district council, which is run by the Lib Dems, started a trial four-day week scheme two years ago.
Employees still receive full pay to do 100 per cent of their work in 80 per cent of their hours. They are urged to use their extra non-working day to 'recover and re-energise'.
The Lib Dems have also come under attack for their stance on the Gaza conflict, having called for a ceasefire weeks after the Oct 7 massacre in 2023.
Israel was blamed directly for Oct 7 during a fringe event at the party's conference last year when a speaker claimed that Israel's 'far-Right dogma' had 'led directly' to the slaughter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Over 46,000 public bodies spurned offer of free King Charles portrait
It was a celebratory multimillion pound scheme to mark the beginning of King Charles III's reign. Free portraits of the king were offered to all public bodies – every town hall, university, hospital and even jobcentre – so the new monarch's visage could gaze down on his subjects. The initiative would provide 'a reminder of the example set by our ultimate public servant', said the then Tory deputy prime minister, Oliver Dowden. But the current government is proving coy about where exactly any of the images of King Charles ended up after it admitted more than 46,000 public institutions had showed no interest. In what has been described as an 'absurd' decision about a scheme to distribute large portraits of the king to be hung in public view, it is refusing to say which schools, hospitals and job centres did request them, saying it could 'give rise to controversy' and create 'negative public perception'. More than £2.7m was spent meeting requests for the pictures and while take-up was patchy, more than 20,000 images of Charles in a medal-laden Royal Navy uniform were sent out – a 31% hit rate. But the reluctance to reveal where they ended up has emerged from a Guardian freedom of information request which the Cabinet Office has been resisting for many months. Last October it rejected the request for the information by arguing disclosure would be an 'actionable breach of confidence'. In effect it implied a public authority which requested a portrait of the king to display in public might sue the government for revealing that it had done so. When the Guardian appealed on the grounds that 'requesting a portrait of the king funded by the taxpayer for the express purpose of being publicly displayed cannot reasonably be considered a confidential matter', it dropped that justification and changed tack to claim release would 'prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs', a different exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. It said disclosure 'would be likely to trigger questions about why certain organisations requested the portrait and (by extension) why others did not' and that organisations would be distracted from operational activity by having to answer them. One royal historian said it was the latest example of the government acting to protect the reputation of the monarchy and a sign of anxiety in Whitehall about any further undermining of the institution's reputation. The refusal comes amid a steady decline in the proportion of the adult population who believe the monarchy is good for Britain, falling from 60% in July 2019 to 51% in March 2024, according to You Gov. The combined proportion of people who thought it was either bad or neither good nor bad rose in the same period from 34% to 44%. Graham Smith, the chief executive of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said declining public support meant 'the chances of there being controversy around spending money on portraits is far more likely than in the past'. The government has already said that less than a third of eligible public institutions asked for a portrait, including only 3% of hospitals, 7% of universities and only one in four Church of England churches. National and local government bodies were far more enthusiastic with 73% making requests, while every one of the 23 coastguard bodies received a portrait. But overall more than 46,500 public institutions that could have ordered a portrait did not. 'The public may have an interest in knowing which institutions applied for the King's portrait,' the government said in its freedom of information response. 'However, the likely motivation behind such interest may focus more on identifying which organisations did not apply rather than understanding government decision making or policy effectiveness. This type of scrutiny does not necessarily serve a broader public interest and could unfairly single out institutions for criticism over a discretionary decision that does not impact their ability to provide public services. This type of negative attention could discourage organisations from engaging in similar schemes in the future due to negative media coverage or reputational harm.' Transparency could cause enough people to ask why a given school or hospital did or did not request a portrait, that it could distract the public body from its work and that releasing the facts of the matter could cause 'negative media coverage or reputational harm', the Cabinet Office said. Smith said it was unacceptable to maintain secrecy around public spending by cash-strapped public institutions in order to avoid controversy. 'The whole point of freedom of information is to allow the public to judge the conduct and decisions of public authorities,' he said. 'It is up to the public to determine whether they criticise those who do order or don't order the portrait.' Dr Ed Owens, a royal historian, called the refusal 'a form of obfuscation'. He said that releasing the information 'would shed light on the fact that there isn't a great deal of interest in him'. 'The fact that hospitals haven't unanimously requested portraits suggests there's a disconnect between the monarchy's public image when it seeks to nurture relationships with public institutions like NHS hospitals and their actual relationship with the monarchy,' he said. 'If we were to go back 100 years you'd almost certainly see a picture of the king in most public and many private institutions and many private homes as well. In terms of the significance of this particular figure to ordinary people's lives, I think it is very telling.' He described the decision to withhold the information as 'more than absurd' and said: 'The Cabinet Office seems to be playing an active role in seeking to protect the reputation of the monarchy … they are clearly anxious about this kind of information being used to discredit and to further undermine the monarchy's public image.'
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Kemi is wrong, we do need a land value tax
Inheritance tax has long been considered Britain's most hated duty. But in recent years, I think there's been a serious challenger to this opprobrious title: council tax. Year after year, we pay more and more, and receive less and less in return. The system is dated, its invention was rushed and it seems to be a sticking plaster for the mistakes of incompetent councils. In highlighting the miserable state of this tax, Kemi Badenoch is right. The constant rises are cynical, and they are a raid on 'the very people who keep this country going'. But in her recent attack on land value tax – the idea of charging duty proportionally on the land under your home – she has revealed a fatal misunderstanding. When she wrote on Sunday in opposition to the idea, she implicitly stated she believes it is more important whether your ancestors were friends of William the Conqueror, as the former Duke of Westminster said of his landowning wealth, rather than what you do in your own life. Gerald Grosvenor acknowledged that his enormous fortune – he died as the third wealthiest man in the UK – was owed to his forebear, Hugh d'Avranches, being a chum of the invading Norman (along with, of course, centuries of astute management) who divvied up the nation. At its heart, whether it is fairer to pay tax on earned or unearned income is the difference between a land value tax and our current system of income, dividends, capital gains, inheritance and corporation taxes, to name but a few. Most famously proposed by 19th century economist, Henry George, what has become known as the land value tax was an attempt to envision a fairer and more efficient tax system – one based on paying dues for what you did not and cannot create, rather than that which you do. In essence, land is immutable. It was here before us, and will be after us, so who can really claim to be owed economic recompense from it? The house you build upon it, the farm you till, the mine you dig, however, are all derived directly from your ingenuity and effort. We have every right to be rewarded financially for this, and why should anyone else get a penny of our efforts? It is also well evidenced that the more you tax something, the less we bother with that thing. If I'm going to work 50 hours and the Government is taking 25 hours' pay, I may as well just work 40 hours and still take home pay for 20. Of course, everybody loses in this scenario. Land, again, is immutable – tax it, and it's not going anywhere. In fact, to tax land and not the efforts upon it, encourages entrepreneurialism. If you're going to be paying to claim that land over someone else, you better make use of it. Businesses should be profitable, landlords should find tenants and developers should build. Of course, this is much easier said than done. How does one value the land itself rather than the land and the house you've built on it? This is vital to get right. Under this system, remember, your efforts should not incur tax. There is one particular modern day proponent of Georgism who has done plenty of work on this precise issue. Lars Doucet, using his own work and many others', predicts the value of the land in the US to be somewhere between $24tn (£17.8tn) and $44tn. Charge, say, 5pc of the value per year, and that brings in $1.2tn to $2.2tn, or 20pc to 45pc of last year's total tax revenue. Here is my condition, though – to impose a land value tax, a government must remove or reduce other taxes. It cannot be viewed as additional revenue, otherwise the whole system falls apart. Stamp duty is an obvious one to abolish – if you're paying rent on land, there's absolutely no justification for charging additional property taxes. Income tax rates must be dramatically reduced, and inheritance tax should be redesigned. Perhaps we've come too far since William Pitt the Younger to untangle the mess he created with income tax and its endless derivatives, but we owe it to ourselves to dream once in a while. With the Bayeux Tapestry about to return home for the first time in almost a thousand years, perhaps it is time to honour Benjamin Disraeli's one-nation conservatism, and bring an end to a country divided by 'the conquerors and the conquered' depicted in that cloth.
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's Medicaid cuts chip away at my right to live
The system was already failing us before these recent cuts. Getting enough hours felt like a battle. Navigating paperwork was a full-time job. The support I needed was out of reach - offered in theory, withheld in practice. My caregivers have other jobs and families. Coordinating support feels like solving a puzzle that keeps changing. When I can't make it work, I miss out. I cancel plans, skip opportunities, stay home. Not because I'm disabled, but because the system makes participation impossible. We recently marked two anniversaries: 35 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law and 60 years since Medicaid was created. These were meant to be moments of celebration. Instead, I spent those days at a 60-hour vigil outside the Capitol, protesting the Medicaid cuts buried inside what the Trump administration calls "One Big Beautiful Bill." I sat sweating in my wheelchair while they celebrated the ADA, honoring disability rights while gutting the program that makes those rights real. Trump's hollow gestures mask brutal cuts for people with disabilities The symbolism was hollow. The reality was brutal. Medicaid pays the caregivers who help me eat, bathe and start my day. Without that funding, that care disappears - and so do the jobs that provide it. Opinion: Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill victory tour hits major bump - voters hate it I've had a disability - muscular dystrophy - my entire life, and have relied on Medicaid throughout my adulthood. The former shaped my identity with pride. The latter turned my existence into a negotiation, where my needs are measured against cost and my future hinges on someone else's math and stock prices. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. In 2020, I moved out on my own during the COVID-19 pandemic and asked for more caregiving hours. I was denied. I appealed to my Medicaid provider but was ultimately rejected again, essentially because I was "not disabled enough." That's what it's like to live in a system where your basic needs are judged by people who don't understand your life. Millions of families are in the same impossible position - forced to choose between caregiving and working, between paying for help and paying rent. The wages are low and the hours are unpredictable. Without stability, how do you build a life? One of the harshest provisions, part of nearly $1 trillion in cuts, would force people with lifelong disabilities to reverify their Medicaid eligibility every six months - as if conditions like muscular dystrophy might just disappear. This isn't about fraud prevention. It's about making the process so exhausting that people give up or get left behind. Two years ago, my Medicaid office lost a form. They said I never submitted it and ended my coverage. I had to start over, submitting more than 400 pages of documents. I went two months without insurance or caregiving. It was terrifying. And this bill could make that nightmare the norm. Medicaid cuts will make care a luxury for Americans with disabilities The agenda behind these cuts reflects a cruel belief: that people like me are expendable. That our care is a luxury. That billionaires deserve tax breaks more than I deserve to go to the bathroom more than twice a day. But I've seen what's possible when we invest in care. I helped pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New Jersey because I know how essential care work is - and how deeply undervalued it remains. I've lost caregivers not because they didn't care, but because they couldn't afford to stay. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Medicaid makes life possible. It funds home and community-based care not just for disabled people but also for older adults, parents and caregivers across the country. When Congress cuts Medicaid, they aren't just targeting a program. They're threatening our ability to live, to care and to be cared for. And here's the truth: You don't have to be disabled to need Medicaid. One accident, one diagnosis, one lost job - that's all it takes. When I couldn't get the care I needed, my best friend Zack stepped in. He crashed on my couch for months to make sure I was safe and fed. He did it out of love. But no one should have to rely on a friend to survive. We need more than speeches. We need leaders who see disabled people as human beings. We need a Medicaid system that doesn't just help us survive but lets us thrive. So don't just celebrate the ADA. Don't just mark Medicaid's anniversary. Show us that our lives matter. Protect the programs that give us independence, dignity and joy. From where I sit, holding tight to the care that keeps me alive, this bill isn't beautiful. It's a threat to everything we've built - and everything we still hope to become. Steve Way, an actor and comedian, is a member of the Caring Across Generations' Creative Care Council.
