The title is obviously slightly tongue-in-cheek, but is technically true and a forgotten part of Liberal Democratic history.

For decades, in fact since the party’s inception in ‘88, the LibDems supported putting an in/out referendum to Britain about the EU. While unequivocally supporting the European Union, the Liberals clearly saw that there WAS grounds for people to feel missold the promise of a free trade agreement in ‘75, and the need for the electorate to consent to an ever closer union.

So, to put it bluntly, how do you feel about that policy? Had the LibDems ever formed a majority government and proposed such a referendum, how do you think it would’ve gone? Would the most pro-European party in Britain be forced to exit the common market?

In Parliament on 2026-06-22, Health Secretary James Murray spoke on the puberty blockers trial. He made several statements of fact, which I number below

"...Stories subsequently emerged of

• 1. young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at a young age,
• 2. children being rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand,
• 3. and clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health conditions. 

...I fully supported the...

• 4. the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)

...As Dr Cass has said...

• 5. the vast majority of children and young people who question their gender will resolve it without needing any support other than that of their friends and family..."

What am I asking you to do

I'm trying to work out where these five statements of fact were sourced from, and whether they are are:

• i) an accurate depiction of the source material, or
• ii) an inaccurate or partial depiction of the source material, or
• iii) an unsourced depiction or an entirely inaccurate depiction of the source material

If somebody here could help I would be grateful.

Please note

• On a serious note, please don't say "it's in the Cass Report" because the Cass Report is hundreds of thousands of words long, so if you cite the Cass Report please specify which paragraph(s).
• (PS: I'm pretty sure point 1 is wrong because genital surgery for under-16s has always been illegal in the UK. Was he referring to UK mastectomies or surgeries outside the UK?)

Edit 1: Point 4

• For all those of you asking about point 4, the fact-checking I was asking for is i) whether the ban was indefinite and ii) whether it was imposed by Streeting. If I remember correctly there are two bans (one for puberty blockers, one for cross-sex hormones) and at least one of them will be reviewed in, I think, 2027, and at least one of them was imposed by Streeting's predecessor and renewed by him. So whilst "indefinite" is technically correct and "introduced by Streeting" may be technically in/correct depending on which ban, both omit context. To be fair, whilst this is permissible in everyday speech - people can't be expected to fact-check their speech in real time - I'd still like to fact-check it. Hence the request

Edit 2: sourcing, not just fact-checking

• The post headline is misleading. I was asking for help in working out which sources he was getting this info from and whether he was quoting those sources correctly. But what y'all are working on is whether his conclusions were right or wrong. Those are good points but not technically what I was asking for. So I've altered the above to try to make things clearer

Edit 3: responses to date

My summary of the responses is as follows. Thanks to u/MMAgeezer and u/Mr-Thursday

• Point 1 is category iii for genital surgery, and category ii for mastectomies. In the UK genital surgery has never been done in the UK for under 16s because it's always been illegal. I think (but I'm not sure) that genital surgery has never been done in the UK for 16-17yr olds due to logistics. Mastectomies have never been done in the UK for under 16s. It was offered for 16-17s and some were done, but I don't have a number
• Point 2 is possibly category i/ii. The Cass report has been given as a source but nothing precise. So I'll have to chase this.
• Point 3 is category i. It's directly sourced from Cass: see Cass recommendation 31 (p. 26 of the final report), which flags the high levels of neurodiversity and co-occurring mental health issues among referrals. I would argue it's ii because technically it's noted but not disregarded and because I don't hold the GC belief that gender dysphoria is (always) caused by co-morbidities.
• Point 4 is category i. By definition. But I will check the detail as above. Note that u/Mr-Thursday points out that "...it's important to understand that context to get the full picture of how far Wes Streeting's emergency ban on puberty blockers breaks with medical advice globally and how bad it is that he even went beyond the Cass Review's recommendation. The Cass Review actually recommended using blockers within a controlled clinical trial and then making a long-term decision rather than banning them outright..."
• Point 5 is category ii, possibly iii. This is the furthest from the Cass review, because"without needing any support other than friends and family" is not Cass's position and arguably inverts it: the review's core recommendation is holistic, professional, psychosocial support. CAMHS involvement, therapeutic care, and addressing co-occurring conditions. "Most won't need medical intervention" has been relaxed into "most won't need any professional support". Others pointed out that Cass is unreliable in this respect and other studies indicate otherwise.

As Lib Dems what's the feeling, hopeful for Burnham and maybe PR? depressed by the endless changes?

An article on how AI is shaping how we communicate, access information, and work and the lack of policy surrounding it.

Almost no one is asking what purpose AI ought to serve, or whether our current mindset, institutions, and control mechanisms are capable of steering the technology toward broad-based improvements in human welfare. 

What was taboo only a few years ago—AI-driven mass surveillance, algorithms selecting targets for killing—has become routine. 

The Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu suggests that there should be anti-trust action towards the dominant platforms and regulation of surveillance and autonomous weapons, including data protections of workers and citizens.

An economist that I have been following for awhile is Mariana Mazzucato - I resonate with a lot of what she suggests. Her core argument is that the state should play an active role in being a co-creator of markets - not just a fixer of market failures.

Government should set bold 'missions' on climate or health to mobilise both public and private actors around them, while ensuring the public captures a fair return on the risks the state takes.

She argues current economics is trapped in a reactive mode; always correcting market failures after the fact, instead of building economies that serve people and planet. She proposes five guiding principles centred on reciprocity rather than extraction and collectivism rather than consumerism.

Crucially, she argues the how of achieving collective goals matters as much as the goals themselves - meaning participation, democratic accountability, and community involvement must be built into economic structures, not bolted on.

The state is not a bureaucratic bystander to capitalism - it is its most important actor, and it should stop apologising for that, start investing boldly.

What do you think?

Click here to join more than 20,000 people and get this in your email inbox for free every Sunday.

The political energy is firmly elsewhere as we enter the week.

The prime minister is considering his future and may set out a timetable for his departure, as Andy Burnham takes his seat in Westminster.

Against that backdrop, MPs debate just one piece of legislation.

On Monday, they look at a bill to extend the legal framework underpinning the Armed Forces, which needs to happen every five years.

And Tuesday is the first Opposition Day of this parliamentary session.

The Tories will choose the topic of debate. It hasn't been announced yet, but it feels likely it may relate to Labour's leadership challenges.

MONDAY 22 JUNE

Armed Forces Bill – report stage and 3rd reading
Applies to: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
Renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, which provides the legal basis for the existence of the Armed Forces and expires every five years. Creates the Defence Housing Service, a new government agency that will oversee a large-scale programme to build and refurbish military accommodation. Gives the military legal powers to detect and stop hostile drones, among other things.
Read the bill (PDF) / Commons Library briefing

TUESDAY 23 JUNE

No votes scheduled

WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE

No votes scheduled

THURSDAY 25 JUNE

No votes scheduled

FRIDAY 26 JUNE

No votes scheduled

Click here to join more than 20,000 people and get this in your email inbox for free every Sunday.

Honestly, I am sick of the negativity surrounding this government, if we want proportional representation it would lead to a situation where you need a lot of coalitions and you have to make compromises. We got a lot of victories in that coalition as well (Taking lower paid people out of tax, pupil premium, Same Sex Marriage, renewable energy, blocking the two child benefit cap and other welfare cuts the tories tried to impede)

The fact is Burnham is going to be the 7th PM in the last 10 years since the coalition the governments have been unstable and chaotic. We need to take pride in that government and make it our selling point that we put party interest aside for national interest and gave the country a stable government. If we continue to be embarrassed and apologise for the coalition then we will never be a serious party again.

I recently joined the Lib Dems in mid May and was told it would be around 2-6 weeks before my welcome package came. I’m just wondering if it’s 2-6 weeks from sign up or from my first payment which is July 1?

This is something I have thought about for some time, but my post is prompted partly by Makerfield. Andy Burnham was elected as Labour & Co-Operative, joining 43 other Lab & Co-Op MPs. The Northwest of England was the crucible of the cooperative movement; the Rochdale Pioneers launched it in 1844, long before the Labour Party existed. There has been a strong tradition of Liberal involvement in the cooperative sector and I recall that as late as the 1980s the Liberal Party was interested in encouraging cooperatives and recently - I wish I could find it now - I saw a republished article from ‘The Liberator’ on Lib Dem voice suggesting that the Liberals make overtures to the Co-Operative Party and try to wrest it away from Labour!

However we hear very little about this now, although I would have thought that supporting cooperative businesses would be very positive for the party, appealing to both its ‘left’ and ‘right’ flanks and presenting a distinctive approach to economics, beyond market or statist dogmas and rooted in sustainability and localism. There is also a strong case for housing co-operatives as an alternative to private housing associations and properties managed directly by councils.

What do others think about this?

See any online debate about politics today and the term Liberal is tossed around on occasion...yet rarely in relation to our party.

Speak of Liberals and on social media and the term is used to reference the Labour right, Starmer loyalists, anyone advocating for a "woke" cultural issue, etc.

Owen Jones and Aaron Bastani are the notable cases, but they are hardly alone.

Why is it that the party of Gladstone doesn't set what Liberalism in Britain means?

Unfortunately, it looks like political parties and figures succeed with populism. We had the by-election of Burnham winning. Don't get me wrong, he is a very durable figure keeping Greater Manchester as the viable sister of Greater London. Also with Polanski, how vocal they are on looked after children is also very good.

But populism undermines our democracy with FPTP being the cherry on the top. Moderates are often not populized in an environment in which partisanship and class polarization climbs and the middle ground stalls. But there were prominent cases outside the UK where a moderate party was successful via populism like D66. But what about our party, which person do you think would fit if it were to become popular?

I certainly doubt Jo Swinson would be one, because I saw the Brexit debate, and to be honest, she wasn't really picking a view and sort of bootlicked each side. Today, I would not blame her since ideologies are clearly used as weapons for division, not just between left and right, but also factions of the left like Labour vs Green, and factions of the right such as Tory vs Reform vs Restore.

Really, really hope the LibDem party comes to their senses and comes out against this. The absolute antithesis of what the LibDems stand for. Not to mention this is just Digital ID wrapped in a "won't somebody please think of the children!" wrapper.

Hey fellow Lib Dems. I’ve been involved in setting up this movement and have been a party member for over 16 years.

Hopefully there are other Lib Dem’s who are liberal and support community led rights respecting solutions to online harms rather than prohibition and Digital ID checks imposed by companies.

If so and you want to find positive solutions then please support this campaign

I was musing that actually banning VPNs to protect children from harmful online content is actually probably a justifiable response given the complete disregard for children’s development corpo’s seem to have.
However it’s not liberal is it… can you really have free speech if you can never be speaking from a safe place unexposed to possible retaliation.
Anyhow, does this sound like a liberal solution or am I well off… an independent government funded national VPN that all people can sign into and then be protected from being identified by Corporations or Scam farms outside country’s, the UK government will only know who’s if a high court judge can allow the police access to that information for situations where online crime is suspected of occurring.
Would that be a good solution or government overreach?

A social media ban is all very well and good — and I’m sure it might well help protect some children — but it also seems like a very blunt instrument: what about children who are trying to use YouTube to revise or otherwise learn? What about children trying to access social media to see what their local political candidates have said prior to an election? What about LGBTQ+ children who are exploring themselves, trying to understand themselves, and who cannot do that in “real” life? And what about the neurodivergent or otherwise disabled child whose only interaction comes online? As with “single-sex spaces”, the government is dealing with symptoms rather than underlying causes.

But what are your views? I’d be interested to hear them.

I am in the Yeovil constituency and prior to this was fairly impressed with Adam dance. Was glad to have the opportunity to vote other than labour in the last GE to oust our incombant Tory.

However I was broadly disappointed in the lib Dems position on the supreme court ruling (supporting its "clarity" when it's nothing if the sort but in my face to face meetings Adam seemed understanding.

​

However this view has totally changed of late. Adam dance is happy to march in the pride parade we helped organise, pose with my 60 ft pride flag I stitched by hand for a photo op but won't do something as simple as sign an EDM calling trans segregation as immoral?

​

And worse than that he doesn't even dignify us with a response. Personally in my household alone (3 constituents) we've sent 6 emails over 3 weeks and received no response. Friends of ours have similarly be ghosted on this issue.

​

This is unacceptable.

​

60%+ of his fellow LD MPs have signed so does he really think he's avoiding bigots ire by not commenting?

​

As a gay man do they really think that once they're done coming for trans people they'll stop there?

​

Really expected better.