UK General Election 2024

[PGAT]

Lib Dems have just released their manifesto and it is excellent

 

[nw1]

Seems like a lovely fella, to use a HIGNFY segment what are we saying, Fruitcake or Loon?

And I see Reform themselves are being less than condemnatory. From the same article:

A Reform spokesman said the comments were not "endorsements" but "written with an eye to inconvenient perspectives and truths", while his remarks about women were "tongue in cheek".

 

[HSTEd]

The Lib Dem manifesto has an awful lot in it, but a lot of it appears to be based around hopes and aspirations rather than concrete objectives

For example, from the energy section of the manifesto pg (27/117):

Decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price

With no detail on how this will be achieved, given that that coupling is inherent to the electricity market.
The only way to do that would be to impose outright state controls on electricity prices, which the Lib Dems don't appear to support.

They then propose special low energy prices for "vulnerable" customers - ie. pensioners - paid for by everyone else.

 

[geoffk]

No vote is wasted - it might not lead to your desired outcome but impacts the amount of money opposition parties get and influences policy. We have seen that with the influence UKIP and Reform have without a single MP.

No vote would be wasted if we had PR but, if Labour win by the margin some are suggesting, that will be off the agenda again for another 5 years.

 

[Snow1964]

The Lib Dems are interestingly pledging to take the UK back into the EU single markets. This could be very popular with the pro-rejoin movement, especially on the political center.

x.com

x.com

Looking forward to how Starmer and Labour will respond to this move.

To some extent haven't actually fully exited single market, in sense we keep extending exemptions, not doing full border checks on goods, and have an extended temporary fudge at Northern Ireland border.

Even Brexit fans didn't want us stranded in some sort of Admin no man's land regarding borders.

 

[JonathanH]

Tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy much, especially when the problem is on the supply side and they tend to just stoke inflation. They are also a bad look politically when people are struggling with the cost of living and energy prices are sprialling.

Yes, focusing tax reductions on those who are worse off would put money into the economy, instead of tax reductions for the well off just increasing their wealth. Providing more money to the well off just sees more money spent on imported goods.

However, the basic problem is that in a global economy those at the bottom of the wage ladder are suppressed by both big business and globalisation. Given prices aren't going to come down, the only effective way to counteract a 'cost of living crisis' is to focus resources towards the less well off affected by it.

Her views on the economy are probably right - we do need to reduce the tax burden on individuals and companies to encourage growth (the Tories are saying the same thing in this election) - but she tried to do this without sounding out the City, and seeking behind-the-scenes support for this. She went too quickly and did not communicate well.

We certainly do not need to reduce the tax burden on individuals, at least not the affluent. A lot more tax is needed to pay for a better standard of living for all in a way that corrects the imbalance that has spread over the last few decades between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.

Growth needs to be the right sort of growth, which is sustainable and not just consumption.

 

[JamesT]

The Lib Dem manifesto has an awful lot in it, but a lot of it appears to be based around hopes and aspirations rather than concrete objectives

For example, from the energy section of the manifesto pg (27/117):



With no detail on how this will be achieved, given that that coupling is inherent to the electricity market.
The only way to do that would be to impose outright state controls on electricity prices, which the Lib Dems don't appear to support.

They then propose special low energy prices for "vulnerable" customers - ie. pensioners - paid for by everyone else.

I've seen some commentators talk about changing the nature of the electricity market away from the current marginal cost model where the price is set by the last generator needed to cover demand. On some notion that if you only pay the 'actual' cost of the generation then the renewables being cheaper will save money.
I'm not sure what stops the renewable generators just bumping up their prices to cover the lost profit margin from no longer being paid at the gas price when that's the marginal generator.
It also ignores that the marginal cost pricing is only the spot market, there's a fair bit done on fixed price contracts as well which will already be decoupled from the gas prices.

 

[HSTEd]

However, the basic problem is that in a global economy those at the bottom of the wage ladder are suppressed by both big business and globalisation. Given prices aren't going to come down, the only effective way to counteract a 'cost of living crisis' is to focus resources towards the less well off affected by it.

A very large part of the cost of living is susceptible to state policy though.

Housing is not expensive now because housing is inherently expensive, it is expensive because the de-facto state policy is to drive up house prices by artificially restricting supply.

The price of energy could be reduced without wealth transfers if a competent energy policy was implemented. The governments of the past 40 years have wrecked the energy system but an energy system capable of delivering cheap energy can exist.

Energy and housing, together, make up a large percentage of total outgoings.

 

[JonathanH]

Housing is not expensive now because housing is inherently expensive, it is expensive because the de-facto state policy is to drive up house prices by artificially restricting supply.

Yes, your idea to bulldoze low density urban space and replace it with higher density housing is interesting, but I think would be somewhat difficult to implement, so instead we deem it acceptable to bulldoze the countryside instead.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, your idea to bulldoze low density urban space and replace it with higher density housing is interesting, but I think would be somewhat difficult to implement, so instead we deem it acceptable to bulldoze the countryside instead.

I don't really suppose bulldozing low density urban space?
I believe that was one of the other posters.

I'm not convinced, given the shortages of personnel and industrial capacity that high density housing is buildable in the quantities required.
Notwithstanding all the enormous political issues involved with forcibly evicting millions of people from those houses.

I support just building housing wherever we can, with whatever methods are available. We are probably short five or six million homes.
It's highly unlikely that a large portion of the "countryside" would be required to do that though.

Even at the density of Milton Keynes we'd be looking at ~2% of England, much less of the UK as a whole.
If we were to attempt a polder solution we could even attempt to leave the UK's current land surface intact.

 

[dangie]

When releasing their manifesto's, can the political parties please refrain from using the word 'pledge'

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, 'pledge' means a formal promise, or something that is given as a sign that you will keep a promise

Since when has any party carried out their pledges? Maybe if they said 'We would like to...... but don't bank on it...'

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes, your idea to bulldoze low density urban space and replace it with higher density housing is interesting, but I think would be somewhat difficult to implement, so instead we deem it acceptable to bulldoze the countryside instead.

The point is that the state controls land supply through the planning system. That might be a good thing taken overall but it does presumably drive up the cost of land that is available to build on, and thus the cost of homes built on such land

It's just cheaper to bulldoze the countryside under the existing planning system.

I think the point a free marketeer would make is that homes could be cheaper if the prices were not driven up by state involvement in land supply with planning permission. Until all the land that was suitable to build on ran out of course.

 

[Spamcan81]

So that pile or ordure that is Farage is complaining that the polls aren’t accurately showing the level of support for Reform and if they don’t mend their ways, there will be trouble.

 

[nlogax]

Since when has any party carried out their pledges? Maybe if they said 'We would like to...... but don't bank on it...'

Election 'pledges' should only been taken as Sir Humphrey-style promises to consider the possibility of doing something about x or y at a time to be determined should conditions allow. It's always been that way.

 

[WesternLancer]

Since when has any party carried out their pledges? Maybe if they said 'We would like to...... but don't bank on it...'

I suspect you would find it a lot more difficult that you think to find things in previous manifestos that have not been carried out, actually.

And then that task is made more difficult since they would be worded in such a way that would make it harder to establish in a b&w fashion...

That is not, of course, the same as saying that your or my interpretation of what you thought the manifesto meant has not been carried out.

On the theme this is an interesting report on the last manifesto for the party in govt (see the tabulated document linked from this statement):
https://www.instituteforgovernment....019-conservative-manifesto-half-time-analysis

as at Dec 2021

Over half (55%) of the Conservative government’s 2019 manifesto pledges are completed or on track – but 41 pledges are at risk of failure or have been delayed, suspended or abandoned.

This report updates the IfG’s manifesto analysis from April 2021. Since then 19 more commitments have been completed, and work has now started on 23 promises which had yet to start in April. However, the number of pledges at risk has nearly doubled from 17 to 30, while work is yet to begin on a further 24.

 

[Snow1964]

Lib Dems have just released their manifesto and it is excellent

This is extract of part 16 (Transport) of Lib Dem manifesto

• Make rail a genuinely convenient, affordable and environmentally-friendly option for both passengers and freight by:
  • Urgently establishing a new Railway Agency: a public body which would help to join up the industry – from track to train – putting commuters first, holding train companies to account, and bringing in wholesale reform of the broken fare system.
  • Being far more proactive in sanctioning and ultimately sacking train operators if they fail to provide a high-quality public service to their customers.
  • Exploring the introduction of an annual pass for all railways.
  • Improving accessibility at stations through the Access for All programme.
  • Delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail to connect cities across the North of England.
  • Reviewing the Conservatives’ cancellation of the northern leg of HS2 to see if it can still be delivered in a way that provides value for money, including by encouraging private investment, or if an alternative is viable.
  • Working with local authorities to implement light rail schemes for trams and tram-trains where these are appropriate solutions to public transport requirements.
  • Establishing a ten-year plan for rail electrification to increase the number of passenger journeys covered by electric trains, investing in other zero-carbon technologies including batteries, and ensuring all new rail lines are electrified as standard.
  • Introducing a national freight strategy to move as much freight as possible from road to rail, supported by a freight growth target and electrification of freight routes.
  • Introducing an international rail strategy to support new routes and operators, and permitting other operators to use the Channel Tunnel and HS1.

• Make public transport more affordable for young people by:
  • Extending half-fares on buses, trams and trains to 18-year-olds.
  • Working with operators to introduce a ‘Young Person’s Buscard’, similar to the Young Person’s Railcard, giving 19- to 25-year-olds a third off bus and tram fares.

• Banning short domestic flights where a direct rail option taking less than 2.5 hours is available for the same journey, unless planes are alternative-fuelled.

• Devolve greater decision-making powers and resources to local authorities in England to design public transport infrastructure around community needs, including powers to introduce network-wide ticketing as in London.
  
• Work to integrate bus, rail and light rail ticketing systems so that a daily fare cap can be introduced for those taking several trips per day.

For a Fair Deal

Liberal Democrats Manifesto 2024

www.libdems.org.uk

 

[Magdalia]

Her views on the economy are probably right - we do need to reduce the tax burden on individuals and companies to encourage growth

No it is completely back to front. High growth comes first and leads to lower tax rates, not the other way round.

 

[HSTEd]

Well numerous observers have concluded that the British state has a problem with very large spending on day-to-day expenses and little ability to amass productive capital.

Promising a pay rise for a suitably photogenic group plays better with the public than spending on some infrastructure or other project - especially since the latter are all in private hands now.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lib Dems have just released their manifesto and it is excellent

It's made me sit up and read it, for sure.

I want the Tory unseated here (Rugby) in a 13,500 majority seat and Labour are the obvious challengers as the second party in the constituency. But as the campaign goes on I am not sure I can, in all conscience, vote for Labour. I'm not really certain that is voting for meaningful change at all.

 

[WesternLancer]

I want the Tory unseated here (Rugby) in a 13,500 majority seat and Labour are the obvious challengers as the second party in the constituency. But as the campaign goes on I am not sure I can, in all conscience, vote for Labour. I'm not really certain that is voting for meaningful change at all.

and therein encapsulates the problem with FPTP. Not that they may be your parties of choice but 'meaningful change' might be delivered by Reform or Greens say, but a vote for them in Rugby is unlikely to deliver their election I suspect, so things other than a tactical vote (in this case for Labour) might actually end up with no change, literally, due to absence of any proportional seat allocation system and the existence of FPTP.

 

[AlterEgo]

and therein encapsulates the problem with FPTP. Not that they may be your parties of choice but 'meaningful change' might be delivered by Reform or Greens say, but a vote for them in Rugby is unlikely to deliver their election I suspect, so things other than a tactical vote (in this case for Labour) might actually end up with no change, literally, due to absence of any proportional seat allocation system and the existence of FPTP.

The party aligning closest to what I'd like to see delivered is the Lib Dems, but they are almost a no-hoper here. Nonetheless, I am sceptical Labour will take the seat, so I may give the LDs my vote as a way of passively endorsing my support, at least if they get a good vote share nationally it may show appetite for their policies.

 

[YorkRailFan]

No it is completely back to front. High growth comes first and leads to lower tax rates, not the other way round.

I don't think Reform got the memo.

 

[MotCO]

No it is completely back to front. High growth comes first and leads to lower tax rates, not the other way round.

Depends on your economic viewpoint. Economics is an art, not a science - neither you nor I can say with 100% certainty which comes first.

 

[WesternLancer]

The party aligning closest to what I'd like to see delivered is the Lib Dems, but they are almost a no-hoper here. Nonetheless, I am sceptical Labour will take the seat, so I may give the LDs my vote as a way of passively endorsing my support, at least if they get a good vote share nationally it may show appetite for their policies.

Yes, it's not an ideal way to have to make a decision.

 

[nw1]

This is extract of part 16 (Transport) of Lib Dem manifesto

Sounds good to me.

 

[dangie]

Lib Dems have just released their manifesto and it is excellent

It would worry me that should the Lib Dem’s win a General Election and are asked to form a government, they wouldn’t be able to find enough suitable MP’s to fill many of the ministerial posts.

Note: Having said that I’m not too sure of the other parties either

 

[Busaholic]

What is "democratic public legitimacy"? You say you understand that we don't directly vote for the role of Prime Minister, but then talk about this fallacy? Sunak was voted as a Member of Parliament, then subsequently voted as leader of his party by his party which gave him the role of Prime Minister.

There is no "democratic public legitimacy".

I'm very pleased that President Macron agrees with me that there is such a thing as 'democratic public legitimacy' and is allowing the French people to exercise it very shortly.

 

[ChrisC]

The party aligning closest to what I'd like to see delivered is the Lib Dems, but they are almost a no-hoper here. Nonetheless, I am sceptical Labour will take the seat, so I may give the LDs my vote as a way of passively endorsing my support, at least if they get a good vote share nationally it may show appetite for their policies.

The Lib Dems are are not just almost a no-hoper here but I would say a complete no hoper. They usually get around just 2% of the votes in this constituency, although in 2019 they did manage 5.5%. The Conservatives usually win here but this time it is almost certainly going to be a significant Labour majority. Having voted Conservative all of my life, in the 2019 election I voted Lib Dem, mainly because I could no longer vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris and the Conservatives handling of Brexit. After Boris and his lies, Liz Truss and the useless Sunak, I think I made the right decision not to vote Conservative. I know it’s a wasted vote in this constituency but I will probably vote Lib Dem again hoping to at least increase their vote share. I‘m realistic about not expecting Brexit to be reversed. I would even consider voting Labour for the first time ever if I could trust them to restore some closer ties with Europe such as the single market and easier internal travel.

 

[PGAT]

I reckon Lib Dems could probably get 10% and win a few seats

 

[Enthusiast]

Election 'pledges' should only been taken as Sir Humphrey-style promises to consider the possibility of doing something about x or y at a time to be determined should conditions allow. It's always been that way.

The problem is, that far too many people believe that a manifesto pledges the party to do exactly what it says on the tin. For example, the front page of the LibDem effort:

"Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to elect a strong local champion who will fight for a fair deal for you and your community.

A fair deal where everyone can afford a decent home somewhere safe and clean – with a comfortable retirement when the time comes.

A fair deal where every child can go to a good school and have real opportunities to fulfil their potential.

A fair deal where everyone can get the high-quality healthcare they need, when they need it and where they need it.

That is the fair deal the Liberal Democrats are fighting for."

What's not to like about that? The problem is that by sticking a cross next to their LibDem candidate, they think it will all come true by next week.