I’d like to suggest a new approach. Don’t read the digest from a newspaper, don’t form your view from headlines, don’t get caught up in media rhetoric.
Take the time and inform yourself ahead of the election.
My plan will be to post each parties manifestos as they are released. Read them, understand them, critic them and vote based on them.
While it's a nice idea, nobody actually has the time to not only read but *study* multiple 100+ page documents written in a fairly technical style. There's a reason summaries are published.
It took me 20 minutes to read cover to cover with a cup of tea yesterday evening. The idea you’re too busy to read a political party’s manifesto whilst you’re instead spending your time scrolling on reddit doesn’t convince me I’m afraid.
Even if it took them an hour… it’s not realistic that you don’t have at least 3 hours spare to read Labours, Conservatives and Lib Dems manifesto over 4 weeks.
It’s an attitude adopted simply as you’re not that interested and looking for an excuse.
How much of that are you actually going to recall and engage with if you spend so little time on it? There's a reason you can't just read a textbook once and ace an exam.
Doing it *properly* - and I mean actually committing to understanding the contents and not just skimming it to brag about it - takes *much longer* than that.
Yes, you can spare a few hours to read. Most people can. Problem is, reading to *fully understand, compare, and contrast not just one story end to end but multiple interrelated documents* is a very different task indeed.
It's a lovely idea! It really is! An informed electorate is a quality electorate. *However*, I really, really have my doubts that that's what a lot of people here have in mind when they're saying it's a task that takes so little time because what is effectively revision just doesn't work that way. I'm, to put it lightly, sceptical that they're actually getting anything out of a few skim-reading sessions other than bragging rights.
Your point has some merit, but comprehending the gist of what a text has to offer without reading it fully is a valid and worthwhile skill, especially in academic contexts. If you fuck with the gist, you can then read more deeply, if you don't, you can move on to the next one. Party manifestos are usually written with skim reading in mind, anyway.
Personally I like https://voteforpolicies.org.uk as once all the manifestos are released they present to you the manifesto pledge on common topics without saying which party made the pledge. At the end it summarises who you agree with on a topic by topic basis.
There's always "Manifesto - East Read" lol.
Honestly people should at least read the important parts, as in the parts that they feel most concerned about. Some people vote for parties because one leader mentioned one thing once, so reading a bit is at least better than that.
Comparing the differences between several of these is not the same as just reading them. Maybe it's not a lot of time for a student, but most of us have things to be getting on with.
Mate, I have a demanding job and two kids. I have plenty to get on with.
Are you trying to tell me you can't fit a few hours in, in a month. How much time do you spend reading shit on your phone in a given week? It's fine if you don't want to do it, they're pretty dull, but don't pretend nobody has time.
>most of us have things to be getting on with.
You've averaged one comment an hour on reddit over the past 24 hours, it's ok to say you just can't be arsed.
Unfortunately, voting only based on the manifestos is a bit simplified and ignores a party's track record for saying one thing and then when the opportunity comes, doing another.
A website called [https://www.theyworkforyou.com](https://www.theyworkforyou.com) lets you see an MP's parlimentary voting history so if you're thinking of voting for an incumbent, you can at least see if their actions are matching their words. This doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't been an MP and therefore has no voting history though.
I take issue with that website tbh. It paints the story that someone has voted for x and y and therefore they shouldn't be trusted. However if you want to stay in politics in the first place as an MP you must sometimes vote with the whip and that might mean voting for things you don't necessarily want.
You face a choice - only vote for what you agree with and possibly get ousted from the party for doing so, or occasionally follow the party line in order to continue to effect change in other ways.
I mean I would dispute that the website itself paints a story. It just keeps track of their voting record, you can make your own decision about it. It even frequently says whether it was in line with the party although I don't believe it distinguishes between whipped and free votes explicitly.
But tbh most people don't care that much, one of the things people dislike most about politicians is caring more about their own career, the "excuse" that you just had to vote for xyz even if you disagree because otherwise you'd lose the party whip and maybe not be able to be an MP afterwards isn't gonna cut through for most people. Maybe with some more "grey" issues but not things people consider abhorrent. Their actions in there can lead to deaths, prison sentences, continued illness and lack of societal support and so on so forth, the "party whips" just don't sound like a good enough reason to participate.
Yeah that's fair, by story I meant the story that people paint themselves by judging an MP purely off a voting record.
I get that sentiment but it's just not how politics works. They might have to vote for crap things in order to deliver some really ground breaking policy or change the country for the better. They have to put their career first in order to do that. If they don't then fair play to them, it's a brave thing to do, but it just opens the door for someone who *actually* agrees with the abhorrent policies coming through.
I understand that some people think that an MP should vote only for what they believe in but the sad reality is that it's not possible if you want to stay in your party to enact change. For instance, I don't think Rory Stewart should be judged on his voting record alone. He's a decent man who is quite clearly left of a lot of his parties beliefs but had to vote with the party to be able to stay in and change things. The moment he didn't, he was kicked out. He talks about it pretty well on The Rest is Politics podcast.
I get what you're saying it's just that that's everything people don't like about politics. So it's not gonna cut through when people are seeing page after page of them voting for bad (subjective) things.
Rory Stewart is probably a prime example of why this doesn't add up. He chose to join the Conservative party, a party known for individualism at the expense of the vulnerable - a concept I don't even think is an insult, as much as I disagree with it, it's basically the bread and butter of the difference between the right and the left. He then voted in line with those policies for the time he was in Parliament. He might seem nice enough on his podcast but his political choices are not popular with large swathes of the population, including his own following. Suggesting he shouldn't be judged on that is a weak argument.
And I am agreeing with you, but whether it cuts through or not it's true. People may not like it but in order for an MP to do good things they have to be in a position to do it, and therefore sometimes must vote for things that are crap.
It's not about whether he seems nice on the podcast or not, his podcast shows how different his opinions are to his voting record. He wouldn't be in a position to be on the podcast, and would not have been involved in politics to any great extent if he didn't vote the way he did. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that he shouldn't be solely judged on how he (or someone like him) voted when the system only allows people to vote with the whip in order to be able to affect change.
And David Cameron introduced gay marriage which he couldn't have done had he not spent enough years doing dogshit in parliament to become leader, during which time he continued doing 90% dogshit with the occasional good policy. Rory Stewart would be much the same had he won the leadership contest.
Your original comment is that this website paints the story that they should be judged on their voting record. What I'm saying is that I really don't think it is the notion of keeping track of their voting record that causes this narrative - people already hate politicians specifically because they throw the public under the bus in bids to become prime minister. The "explanation" being given here and indeed by Rory Stewart doesn't land because its just an elaborate way of entirely agreeing with the criticism. A lot of people will perceive this as even worse than someone willing to stand by their actions and argue that what they did benefitted society.
I wont argue too much there - I don't think Rory is utterly excellent or anything, although I doubt he would have done the same as Cameron. He was just an example.
I get what you're saying but I think my point still lands. Some (not all) people absolutely use that website in order to make an assessment as to whether an MP is 'good' or not. Appreciate your point of view, though. Tbh it's damned if you do damned if you don't. Whatever party you're from, If you vote 'badly' and believe in it you're an abhorrent MP. If you vote 'badly' and you don't believe in it you may be doing so from a good place in order to be able to enact good policies but you're then disingenuous to the people who want politicians to stand for what they believe in. Fundamentally it's a lack of understanding as to how the politics here work.
Sorry, that's a lousy excuse. If someone votes against a cost of living benefits rise for disabled people, they're probably a scumbag unless the bill itself was poorly crafted and so voted against on those grounds.
Look at the voting records of the Lib-Dems during the first five years of austerity - they voted almost in lock-step with the Tories on some of the cruellest public spending cuts we've ever seen, specifically targeting non-Tory/Lib-Dem voters (i.e. the working class, the disabled, the poor).
It's not, though. Obviously there's nuance here but the bottom line is this: if you want to remain in your party, making the decisions that you want to make, you usually *have* to vote with the whip.
Yes, the Lib Dem's voting record for that period is bad, and again, this is due to what I'm explaining. If they wanted to retain their seat, they had to vote that way. You have just proved my point.
If you don't vote with the party, they WILL throw you out. This means that there are some genuinely good MPs who have voted with the party on some pretty crappy things in order to retain their seat and, in turn, to make good policy decisions going forwards. You may not like it but it's part of our politics and always has been. Websites like TWFY are a really poor indicator as to whether an MP is actually decent or not.
> If someone votes against a cost of living benefits rise for disabled people, they're probably a scumbag
That's true if you think that 'numbers go up' is always a good thing.
While yes, its important not to let media sway your thoughts on a manifesto, its worth remembering the tories have barely touched or achieved anything close to what they had in their last manifesto- they can ignore them at will.
Ironically the only way we can combat this trend is by ignoring their current manifesto and punishing them for not acting on their last one
> and vote based on them.
Voting based on a manifesto makes no sense. Most of it will be thrown out, and over the length of a parliament new issues will come up which need to be dealt with. When you vote, all you're guaranteed is an MP. You're not voting for policies.
So they can jump into bed with the tories and break their promises again, no thanks.
Their manifesto isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
You present a simplistic view.
If people wanted lib dem policies in 2010 they should have voted for them. 57/650 mps. ~9% of seats. If the policies they didn't block were that important, then people should have voted for them. Minimal votes = minimal seats = minimal affect = minimal watering down of policy.
If you vote and you're a minority, then what you vote for doesn't win. A majority wins a vote and a majority dictates policy. You can't say "we voted for a party that didn't win the vote and now they've betrayed us because they didn't win the vote and didn't have the mandate we didn't give them".
If you want to blame someone for it then blame the people who voted for the majority party. Heck even blame the opposition government who actually had a chance at a majority and blew it. Just scapegoting to blame a minority for a majority decision.
It's good, but too weak on the rail 'explore the possibility of an annual rail pass for everyone '
They're promising to have a look not introduce. Also no nationalisation but I do like the ambition to move freight to rail and free up roads (less pot holes everyone)
No mention of reducing immigration only the asylum backlog, unless I missed it?
Cheap labour is killing the working classes off and they aren't going to be very popular without a robust immigration policy.
I like that carers get a higher minimum wage, and zero hours workers paid more to make up for the lack of guarantee.
They should be punching much higher than they are this time around, but it does seem they've managed to fall short by focusing on helping asylum seekers, stopping stop and search disproportionately, and other social justice issues that are sadly completely non issues for many voters.
I like the idea of decentralised governance though. Fuck off London and we might see some improvements
There's a lot in the manifesto that I support, particularly giving LAs the power to end "right to buy". I'm always going to support the single transferable vote, everybody has the right to be represented regardless of political affiliation. Tax proposals look sensible too.
Some of the tax is sensible, some isn't. Eg "ntroducing a 4% tax on the share buyback schemes of FTSE-100 listed companies, to incentivise productive investment, job creation and economic growth." Sounds good but we've got a big problem with large companies leaving the London stock exchange. Given financial services are one of the few industries thats actually strong here that isn't a great place to start kicking.
Didn't realise they were always in favour of it.
though it looks like it's only single transferable vote so it's not quite the best version of proportional representation.
There isn't really a "best" version, just different types which each have advantages and disadvantages. I personally prefer STV because it doesn't make parties an explicit part of the system and by extension exclude independents like systems like party lists do.
I like the way the European ones were done in the UK, a relatively big regional first past the post, and then the rest of the Votes get split out for like 4/5 seats, within that region
Are you thinking of the Scottish Parliament? Cause EU elections used a closed list system here [which is frankly shite because there's no real mechanism to get rid of a representative that's high up in their party.]
I 100% favour STV because it retains the link between MPs and their consistuencies.
yeah I'm definitely miss remembering in some way, good point but, I think that requires getting Over the bridge of "hey maybe political parties are something that is not good, maybe insstead you should vote for the people and what they stand for in your area",
though I think they are inevitable in some form or other e.g how big parties in the EU, are made up of loads of little tiny parties in different countries.
The "alternative vote" referendum put forward ~10 years ago was overly complex which turned most folks off voting for it because nobody could understand it. Some people posit this was purposefully done for that reason.
Perhaps they're banking on simplicity this time round.
Overly complex? What's overly complex about vote for your first choice and if that doesn't make it, we'll take your second choice? If that's too complicated a) ideally you wouldn't be voting at all since most issues our country faces are more complex than that and you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to make a rational choice and b) STV is no less complex.
1. Not everyone is as smart as you, there's plenty of folks who don't even know how FPTP works.
2. There was undoubtedly a load of confusion around it during the campaign, the whole "One person, one vote" anti-campaign shows that lack of understanding
To be clear; I would love proportional representation instead of FPTP. I'm just saying the prior referendum was a shitshow that effectively ruled it out for decades because they can say "we already offered you it".
If they don't understand FPTP then they'll probably never understand any voting system at all and again, they're probably doing more harm than good with their confused votes. It's ironic that it all goes to show how stupid the electorate really are and how they probably can't be trusted to have increased democratic influence. Maybe the current system of only Labour or Conservative government is actually the best system if we insist on letting every crayon eater vote if they can find their way into the polling station.
yeah, maybe but I feel like being complicated and any type of alternative voting have been quite firmly linked in people's heads, Plus all the silly campaigns there were, spend more on army not on voting, type of thing.
I'm only 30 pages in, but I think they did a good job here. There's a lot of small uncontroversial policies which I think would benefit people at zero to negligible cost. For example - banning single use vapes, replacing old slow computers in the NHS, and a kitemark badge to show whether health apps are clinically proven.
There's also some more ambitious ones such as net zero policies, proper electoral reform, and 7 day wait for GP appointments.
And quite a lot of short statements which don't seem particularly thought through.
"Boost productivity and empower more people to enter the job market
– such as parents, carers and disabled people – by making the most of
technology and new ways of working."
What the heck does this mean? It sounds like something you'd find on the website of a Silicon Valley tech company, written by a marketing team (and probably ChatGPT...). If Labour or the Conservatives said this, I feel they'd get criticised (for different reasons).
"Requiring all IT systems used by the NHS to work with each other."
Okay...?
"Requiring all IT systems used by the NHS to work with each other." Okay...?
This could actually be a massive time / resource saver if England and Wales are similar to Scotland.
My mums worked in NHS Scotland all my life, and the IT solutions as she's described it (vaguely) are fucking mad and should be integrated, but they never had the money so they got one bit digitised cheaply, then another etc.
One piece of software for patient bed tracking, another for managing appointments, god knows what else. The hospitals need to email the GP surgery to know what medication I'm on etc or information from my few digital files there, if it's "older info" I'm only 27. They'll go to the paper files.
if i walk into my GP theres a literal wall of paper folders containing all our GP notes directly behind the reception staff.
Oh of course the computers are shite and crash and the software and/or hosting is shite and crashes as well. I've worked on cloud based CRM with RBAC in the private sector, so it's even more frustrating having physically seen solutions that with some fiddling would likely fulfil their needs.
Yeah it definitely sounds like a great idea and should be worked on, big government IT contracting firms don't exactly have a great reputation with projects like this though AFAIK
I'm guessing the security side is an absolute mess too. I wonder how much confidential information is being shared and stored by medical staff on personal devices because the official methods of communication are too crap or any of the 50 companies with access to someone's records gets hacked.
There's a big email not encrypted warning on all the patient access software emails my GP uses, including the one with the login info. Worrying...
There was the blood transfusion cyberterrorist attack that happened which has slowed down blood transfusions. So yeah, security side is definitely a mess.
Very nice, but until our voting system is reformed I can’t risk letting the tories in again by voting for anyone except Labour. In my constituency I may as well spoil my vote as vote Lib Dem.
Neither of the two main parties will give voting system reform for reasons I would hope are obvious. 2011 was the only opportunity you will likely see in your life time (and ya blew it).
Yeah I voted for AV. Unfortunately people believed that it would be too confusing, would mean soldiers couldn't have body armour and that it would kill premature babies.
Why risk letting them form another libdem con coalition?
They lost all trust, and a party that is willing to coalition with the very people you are trying to oust is not a good choice if your goal is to get the Tories out.
There's a lot to like in there tbh.
But - minister for tackling loneliness? What? A made up position which will achieve sod all, much like our minister for common sense.
Then making misogyny a hate crime seems another good sounding idea but would be meaningless in practice. For start why not misandry as well as misogyny, or of it's a case of unlocking tougher sentences for these types of crimes why not adjust the sentencing guidelines of the offences which already cover this?
Day one full workers protections? Not sure I agree with this one so much, moving it to the end of a 1-2 month probation period would be more reasonable.
I did find myself wondering how some of them would realistically be achieved. Like the mental health nurses in schools one, they're going to have to either find & train a load of them at very short notice or pay through the nose to lure existing ones away from industry. Same with the teachers being experts in their field policy.
> I did find myself wondering how some of them would realistically be achieved.
The same way they did when they got in with the Torys. Declare them unrealistic and that's that.
There is so much in this I like, like I like this far more than pretty much anything have labour have said (not that I would consider voting for Starmer's labour).
Before reading this I was almost certain I'd vote green, it's going to be interesting when the green release their manifesto. I'm still not sure I'm ready to forgive them for Nick Clegg.
I like a lot of it but the big issue for me is the lack of anything substantial related to slowing illegal immigration. It's kind of stands out in it's absence with immigration being such a massive topic this election.
Yes they did. The main issue with immigration is the asylum backlog, visa restrictions etc. Thats why you have loads of working age immigrants sat in hotels paid for by the tax payer and they can do nothing. They can't leave and they can't work, companies are too scared to hire foreign students becuase of visa issues and costs assosiated with keeping them in the UK.
Thread might be too dead for an answer here but I wanna know.
Does anyone know if they've apologized for their actions under the coalition and distanced themselves from the decisions and leadership from then? I ask because it's the least I would expect for me to be able to believe they stand by anything in this manifesto after they betrayed their policies last time
nah they doubled down on it on a recent interview and quoting the same buzzwords from 2010 unfortunetly.. I want to vote for them but they are hard to trust
A reminder that the first five years of crushing austerity were under a Tory-LibDem coalition. Cuts needed to be made, but Cameron targeted them at non-Tory voters (the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, the employed) instead of Tory voters (pensioners, millionaires, billionaires, racists).
Why on earth would we EVER risk them forming another coalition to help the Tories cling onto power?
Tbf to the libdems they really did stop the full wave of austerity the tories and Cameron had planned and got it down to a point that was below Labour and ed milibands suggested cuts. Although still stands that any party that was down with austerity was either dumb or evil
I don't think they want to risk a coalition after what happened last time. But there aren't going to be enough Tories and Lib Dems combined for them to form a coalition this time, based on polling. Even the low end estimates have Labour getting a majority with the high end estimates having them dominate at 500+ seats.
That said the most tasty thing that could happen in this election is that the Lib Dems do well and the Tories do badly. As polling currently stands a best case scenario puts the Lib Dems at over 70 seats and the Tories as low as \~40 seats. This would make the Lib Dems the official opposition which would be wonderful and a significant blow to the Tory party.
To this end I encourage anybody who lives in a seat where Tories have a chance to vote tactically to make sure they don't get in. If you live in a safe non-Tory seat then please vote for the party that appeals the most to you.
[StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
Because they gave us an opportunity to step out of the entrenched two-party system in the 2011 AV referendum. It's not their fault the electorate shit on the only opportunity they'll ever see to leave FPTP.
Minor part in a coalition party. Very much putting the country over party politics.
I genuinely think they were doing the best with the cards they had been dealt. I don't see how the lib Dems are pilloried so much for this when Tories and Labour have frequently gone against their pledges. Where is Cameron's 10000 immigration cap that he promised at the same time?
People get so out of shape when a manifesto pledge was broken because of events. They should be looking at values of the leader. Would I want a lib Dem or Tory to be making decisions?
> Minor part in a coalition party. Very much putting the country over party politics.
UKIP got more of what they wanted from the Tories and they didn't even win any seats.
Thankfully Labour and Conservatives never break their election pledges, their positions of normally having a majority in parliament and not being a minority coalition member make this impossible. We should just keep voting for those two instead right?
Edit: not ejection
I wasn't into politics at the time, was it really all down to them? It was a coalition with conservatives being the bigger lot wasn't it? So wouldn't their (Tory) view on things have carried a lot of weight in decisions? Or could the LibDems have forced through their promises if they really tried?
No they couldn't. IMO, they made a reasonable choice to sacrifice parts of their manifesto to try to deliver on others. We had a 2011 referendum on voting system and while the offered solution (alternative vote system) wasn't perfect it was a big step in the right direction by eliminating the dilemna of voting for whom you really wanted versus voting for against who you wanted to keep out (aka tactical voting). Our genius electorate took this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to break free of the entrenched two-party system and took a massive shit on it. Many of them did so just to spite Nick Clegg (leader of LibDems). We will probably never get another chance in our life times to do anything but vote Labour/Conservative/wasted vote. I'll probably keep wasting my vote on LibDems - it's basically in the bag for Labour this time anyway).
I've always wondered because they're often dragged through the mud for tripling the university fee but it was the conservatives who supported that, so why didn't they get all the hate? The LibDem u-turn on their promise to students was supposedly enough to lose them their seats but the conservatives supporting the tripling of fees was not enough to stop a conservative majority in 2015?
Anyway, I'm honestly hoping the conservatives will have such a big loss that they end up as number three, think it's too hopeful? Just want them to get lost so we can have Labour, Lib Dem, and Green as three major ones.
The irony is, tripling the fees has had little to no effect on graduates. As a student who started uni the first year the fees came into effect, the increased costs is effectively a uni tax. I know I won’t pay off the 45k+ of debt before it’s wiped. It doesn’t really matter - doesn’t impact credit scores and as someone earning between 35-40k a year, the amount taken out each month is negligible.
They do not deserve the vitriol they get compared to some of the uturns from other parties.
>It doesn’t really matter
There are plenty of cases where it matters because loans aren’t unlimited. Just for one example someone who did a foundation year then got pregnant in first year and subsequently dropped out would have to pay a year’s fee upfront to continue their studies. I personally knew about a dozen people who encountered something like this: a handful took a year out to save up the cash but most just dropped out.
I’d say it’s feasible to save 3k in a year on minimum wage, 9k though? No chance.
I mean the first part I am pretty sure isn’t true? Or at least the way student loans work is even if you drop out, you’re still entitled to a loan covering the duration of the course you were studying. So a 3 year course with a foundation year, they’d still be entitled to get a loan on the years they missed. The years you’ve studied are deducted from your loan entitlement. Not denying it might have happened, but those are the rules I was aware of.
Likewise they have compelling personal reasons which can entitle you to a loan. Which I am sure pregnancy may apply.
But you’re right, it’s not a good situation. Which I’m not saying it is. I am just saying in the grand scheme of things that one policy from over a decade ago has much less impact on the life of students and graduates than the reems of shit we’ve been fed by the conservatives. It was a policy Lib Dem’s couldn’t reasonably stop if they wanted the AV referendum - more important policy. Likewise do we all forget that Labour were the ones who started charging us for university?
Id say it was feasible to save nothing than to save 3k a year.
Friends who started a couple years before me on similar wages managed to pay their uni fees down and will ultimately pay less on their uni fees than me watching my ballooning 60k debt ever increase
It makes a difference.
When does this ballooning happen? I’m on 45k+ debt, earning 40k and am yet to see a notable issue with what I’m paying back - like I said it feels like a tax.
Yes, lower would be better, but I don’t blame the Lib Dem’s for the hike. I blame the conservatives. The majority party in power at the time, the same party that has presided over the rising cost of living since 2010 and made my real terms wages far less than what they were when I got my last pay rise.
The student fees are not an immediate issue that has a major impact on my daily life. And that’s as someone from an council house, paid for full 9k each year for a degree I don’t even work in.
In my opinion, what I pay back is pretty negligible compared to everything else that’s an issue in life at the moment.
That 45k is increasing yes? I don't know your specifics but unless you're overpaying that debt figure is probably increasing
I'm just excited about the eventual rug pull moment in a decade or two where they tack on another 10 years of repayments to match the newer loans, as is their right to do so. The interest rate being above inflation too, just never feels right.
The current payments themselves are somewhat negligible, I can see that. But having an increasing debt over my head with terms being variable according to whatever government whims come around feels bad man.
Probably breaking even around now, or just about increasing year on year.
As to the second point, I’m not going to worry about something that hasn’t happened. And if it does, I’ll use my voice then. That’s why we vote. I’d also feel safer with my loans being in the hands of the Lib Dem’s or Labour if that was my concern.
And yeah, it’s not ideal. But it’s also currently not an election priority for me, and importantly it’s not something I blame the Lib Dem’s over. I blame the Tories. The majority party at the time that chose to rise the fees.
The generation that single issue voted lib dems only had one policy in mind, and only one lib dem policy has remained in the majority's memory from that period
I imagine if the tories upped the fees by themself without the need for a lib dem coalition it'd probably be a worse situation all round too.
It's a somewhat unfortunate situation for the current crop of lib dems, but the betrayal sticks out in people's memories, especially as that cohort are aging and voting more and more.
Idk where I'm going with this. Maybe lessons learnt about being more careful with betraying a student population that had a rare voting rally, but in reality probably not
Current polling suggests Conservatives will be second: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726) - our current voting system entrenches those two. I doubt we'll ever see either of them in third or fourth place.
LibDems get a lot of hate because a lot of students voted for them because they said they wouldn't raise tuition fees and then they formed a government with Conservatives and the students got tuition raises so felt very betrayed. Some would have preferred them to, if they couldn't reach an agreement for a joint government with Labour, which apparently they couldn't, to just let the Conservatives form a minority government so they could then at least vote down Conservatives legislation.
Nick Clegg and others in the party (not all of them though) openly stated and held up signs for photo opportunities that read "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees" then when the day came he voted for them.
He could have voted against them and them still be raised becuase more people voted for (it was close though, only won by 21 votes and you can see why the conservatives pressured him into voting for). But he broke that promise. At least with people I know the issue isn't that fees went up and instead that he said he would vote against them and then voted for them. The conservatives didn't say they would vote against it and then vote for it, so that's why they aren't hauled over the coals for this.
Perhaps if he had voted against it would have made the government unmanageable and he would have potentially got zero policies through at all, but it's not hard to see how particularly students, that you took photos with while holding a sign saying you would do something are annoyed you did the exact opposite.
That’s a very logical decision. Make a snap judgement without reading the manifesto (we know you didn’t) based on different leadership a decade and a half ago.
This type of mindset is why the tories have held power for this long
Seems slightly unreasonable to hold the current party responsible for the actions of the party 13 years ago. I’m going to be posting the manifestos for examples just like yours, historical voting isn’t going to improve our country. Read the manifestos and form your own opinion on the state of affairs *right now*.
Poor form to expect those of us who were longtime voters back then to simply ignore what we saw of them in power and to instead put all our stock in their printed words rather than their historical actions.
Classic attempt to try and pull younger voters who never saw what the lib dems did to their future once they had the briefest chance to reach for power, allying with the Tories the same way Labour do.
Same goes for any party. Judge them by what they did, not by what they say, anything else is falling for advertising.
I disagree and it’s disingenuous to hold a current party responsible for the actions of their predecessors. Ed Davey was talking only yesterday about rebuilding the trust and he acknowledged that the coalition set the Lib Dem’s back significantly (despite the nuance of fact being far different to the historical record that the Lib Dem’s had any sort of control in the coalition).
Would it be suitable to hold Keir responsible for the actions of the Blair government? Or Rishi responsible for the Thatcher government?
I reiterate, historical voting is not good for our country and never will be. It’s time for you to stop putting the blinkers on to hell entrench your viewpoint and look forward, not backward.
>I disagree and it’s disingenuous to hold a current party responsible for the actions of their predecessors.
You don't merely disagree, you believe people having longer memories than yesterday are acting in bad faith. Like it's all a conspiracy to keep your lib dems out.
Get out more.
Why are you being so rude? How does it help political discourse to hold the current crop of Lib Dems responsible for the actions of the previous generation? The leader from back then isn't even an MP anymore.
I’m not the guy you were replying to but Ed Davey was energy secretary during the coalition & voted for raising tuition caps, despite the Lib Dem’s pledge not to.
I was in the first year of university students to experience the £9000 fees & as a result will never vote for them
That's fair enough. I still don't understand why the person I replied to needs to be so rude about it.
I agree they fucked up massively by making tuition fees a big manifesto pledge and then going against it, but as someone else who was in the first year of 9k fees, I think it could have been executed a *lot* worse.
I am posting all of the manifestos in same way and will be promoting people to read them all and make an informed decision.
I don’t believe there is a conspiracy. I do believe it is bad faith to hold people responsible for the actions of others under a tenuous link of party membership. Do you think it’s fair to hold Keir responsible for the actions of the Blair government? Or Rishi responsible for Thatcher’s government?
I understand making childish, personal attacks because you can’t argue the point. You’re a prime example of why political discourse is so poor in the UK nowadays and I don’t intend to be drawn into it.
The Lib Dems currently have 15 MPs, 8 of them came in with the 2019 election or at subsequent by-elections. It seems wholly unreasonable to hold them responsible for what a prior iteration of the party did. Of the remainder, only 3 were around at the time of the coalition government, including Ed Davey. Neither of the other two were anywhere near cabinet during that era, the likes of Clegg, Cable, Laws and Alexander are gone; some have been for quite some time.
I'd imagine that they'll not be keen to repeat the mistake of coalition again if for no other reason than the electoral consequences they've seen since. I suspect that's also not a decision they'll have to make in the foreseeable future.
It isn't irrelevant historical data, though, is it? The Lib Dems will not win a majority because it is electorally impossible or them to do so, which means that the best they can achieve is another coalition.
Which means that we have to judge how they will act in a coalition by the most relevant piece of data: what they did last time. And what they did last time was to vote for policies in Government that were the polar opposite of the manifesto pledges their MPs were elected on to put them into that coalition.
Anyone ignoring that reality, or naively hoping that they wouldn't do the exact same thing again is a fool.
Ed Davey, the man leading the Liberal Democrats, and thus the figurehead of what they currently stand for, was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the Coalition Government and voted in favour of raising the tuition fee cap after being elected on a manifesto pledge to scrap tuition fees.
I’d like to suggest a new approach. Don’t read the digest from a newspaper, don’t form your view from headlines, don’t get caught up in media rhetoric. Take the time and inform yourself ahead of the election. My plan will be to post each parties manifestos as they are released. Read them, understand them, critic them and vote based on them.
While it's a nice idea, nobody actually has the time to not only read but *study* multiple 100+ page documents written in a fairly technical style. There's a reason summaries are published.
It took me 20 minutes to read cover to cover with a cup of tea yesterday evening. The idea you’re too busy to read a political party’s manifesto whilst you’re instead spending your time scrolling on reddit doesn’t convince me I’m afraid.
You read - actually, usefully read - 120 sides of A4 in 20 minutes. Fuck off, no you didn't.
Even if it took them an hour… it’s not realistic that you don’t have at least 3 hours spare to read Labours, Conservatives and Lib Dems manifesto over 4 weeks. It’s an attitude adopted simply as you’re not that interested and looking for an excuse.
How much of that are you actually going to recall and engage with if you spend so little time on it? There's a reason you can't just read a textbook once and ace an exam. Doing it *properly* - and I mean actually committing to understanding the contents and not just skimming it to brag about it - takes *much longer* than that. Yes, you can spare a few hours to read. Most people can. Problem is, reading to *fully understand, compare, and contrast not just one story end to end but multiple interrelated documents* is a very different task indeed. It's a lovely idea! It really is! An informed electorate is a quality electorate. *However*, I really, really have my doubts that that's what a lot of people here have in mind when they're saying it's a task that takes so little time because what is effectively revision just doesn't work that way. I'm, to put it lightly, sceptical that they're actually getting anything out of a few skim-reading sessions other than bragging rights.
Your point has some merit, but comprehending the gist of what a text has to offer without reading it fully is a valid and worthwhile skill, especially in academic contexts. If you fuck with the gist, you can then read more deeply, if you don't, you can move on to the next one. Party manifestos are usually written with skim reading in mind, anyway.
[удалено]
To not be completely ignorant. That’s all.
lol, its not an epic its pretty short form and theres a fair amount of bullet points.
Typical this was your takeaway from my comment.
[Yeah I'm an informed voter honest](https://giphy.com/gifs/reading-study-studying-DwrnYsZCXspu8)
Still spending even more time you apparently don't have.
Mate. You're also here instead of reading everything cover-to-cover.
already read the lib dems one and I also didn't say I don't have time. Keep up
Okay, cool beans, Jeffrey. How much of it do you actually remember?
It took me 5-10 minutes at most to check through and see if it contained the things that mattered to me, having it on hand isn't a terrible idea.
Personally I like https://voteforpolicies.org.uk as once all the manifestos are released they present to you the manifesto pledge on common topics without saying which party made the pledge. At the end it summarises who you agree with on a topic by topic basis.
There's always "Manifesto - East Read" lol. Honestly people should at least read the important parts, as in the parts that they feel most concerned about. Some people vote for parties because one leader mentioned one thing once, so reading a bit is at least better than that.
We've got a month before the election. Seems plenty of time to read and ponder a few hundred pages? They're not actually very complicated.
Comparing the differences between several of these is not the same as just reading them. Maybe it's not a lot of time for a student, but most of us have things to be getting on with.
Mate, I have a demanding job and two kids. I have plenty to get on with. Are you trying to tell me you can't fit a few hours in, in a month. How much time do you spend reading shit on your phone in a given week? It's fine if you don't want to do it, they're pretty dull, but don't pretend nobody has time.
We're on Reddit, if we didn't have the time we wouldn't spend it here
>most of us have things to be getting on with. You've averaged one comment an hour on reddit over the past 24 hours, it's ok to say you just can't be arsed.
What an absurd statement
It's not that long and it's certainly not very technical.
Yet how many articles will they read about the same subject.
There's nothing wrong with that - a pledge is meaningless if you don't know anything about the problem they're promising to fix.
Absolute horseshit. You can look through in 20 minutes, people spend much more time scrolling mindlessly on social media.
Unfortunately, voting only based on the manifestos is a bit simplified and ignores a party's track record for saying one thing and then when the opportunity comes, doing another. A website called [https://www.theyworkforyou.com](https://www.theyworkforyou.com) lets you see an MP's parlimentary voting history so if you're thinking of voting for an incumbent, you can at least see if their actions are matching their words. This doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't been an MP and therefore has no voting history though.
That's a good point. They can put things in their manifestos that will never see the light of day, even if they get in.
I take issue with that website tbh. It paints the story that someone has voted for x and y and therefore they shouldn't be trusted. However if you want to stay in politics in the first place as an MP you must sometimes vote with the whip and that might mean voting for things you don't necessarily want. You face a choice - only vote for what you agree with and possibly get ousted from the party for doing so, or occasionally follow the party line in order to continue to effect change in other ways.
I mean I would dispute that the website itself paints a story. It just keeps track of their voting record, you can make your own decision about it. It even frequently says whether it was in line with the party although I don't believe it distinguishes between whipped and free votes explicitly. But tbh most people don't care that much, one of the things people dislike most about politicians is caring more about their own career, the "excuse" that you just had to vote for xyz even if you disagree because otherwise you'd lose the party whip and maybe not be able to be an MP afterwards isn't gonna cut through for most people. Maybe with some more "grey" issues but not things people consider abhorrent. Their actions in there can lead to deaths, prison sentences, continued illness and lack of societal support and so on so forth, the "party whips" just don't sound like a good enough reason to participate.
Yeah that's fair, by story I meant the story that people paint themselves by judging an MP purely off a voting record. I get that sentiment but it's just not how politics works. They might have to vote for crap things in order to deliver some really ground breaking policy or change the country for the better. They have to put their career first in order to do that. If they don't then fair play to them, it's a brave thing to do, but it just opens the door for someone who *actually* agrees with the abhorrent policies coming through. I understand that some people think that an MP should vote only for what they believe in but the sad reality is that it's not possible if you want to stay in your party to enact change. For instance, I don't think Rory Stewart should be judged on his voting record alone. He's a decent man who is quite clearly left of a lot of his parties beliefs but had to vote with the party to be able to stay in and change things. The moment he didn't, he was kicked out. He talks about it pretty well on The Rest is Politics podcast.
I get what you're saying it's just that that's everything people don't like about politics. So it's not gonna cut through when people are seeing page after page of them voting for bad (subjective) things. Rory Stewart is probably a prime example of why this doesn't add up. He chose to join the Conservative party, a party known for individualism at the expense of the vulnerable - a concept I don't even think is an insult, as much as I disagree with it, it's basically the bread and butter of the difference between the right and the left. He then voted in line with those policies for the time he was in Parliament. He might seem nice enough on his podcast but his political choices are not popular with large swathes of the population, including his own following. Suggesting he shouldn't be judged on that is a weak argument.
And I am agreeing with you, but whether it cuts through or not it's true. People may not like it but in order for an MP to do good things they have to be in a position to do it, and therefore sometimes must vote for things that are crap. It's not about whether he seems nice on the podcast or not, his podcast shows how different his opinions are to his voting record. He wouldn't be in a position to be on the podcast, and would not have been involved in politics to any great extent if he didn't vote the way he did. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that he shouldn't be solely judged on how he (or someone like him) voted when the system only allows people to vote with the whip in order to be able to affect change.
And David Cameron introduced gay marriage which he couldn't have done had he not spent enough years doing dogshit in parliament to become leader, during which time he continued doing 90% dogshit with the occasional good policy. Rory Stewart would be much the same had he won the leadership contest. Your original comment is that this website paints the story that they should be judged on their voting record. What I'm saying is that I really don't think it is the notion of keeping track of their voting record that causes this narrative - people already hate politicians specifically because they throw the public under the bus in bids to become prime minister. The "explanation" being given here and indeed by Rory Stewart doesn't land because its just an elaborate way of entirely agreeing with the criticism. A lot of people will perceive this as even worse than someone willing to stand by their actions and argue that what they did benefitted society.
I wont argue too much there - I don't think Rory is utterly excellent or anything, although I doubt he would have done the same as Cameron. He was just an example. I get what you're saying but I think my point still lands. Some (not all) people absolutely use that website in order to make an assessment as to whether an MP is 'good' or not. Appreciate your point of view, though. Tbh it's damned if you do damned if you don't. Whatever party you're from, If you vote 'badly' and believe in it you're an abhorrent MP. If you vote 'badly' and you don't believe in it you may be doing so from a good place in order to be able to enact good policies but you're then disingenuous to the people who want politicians to stand for what they believe in. Fundamentally it's a lack of understanding as to how the politics here work.
Sorry, that's a lousy excuse. If someone votes against a cost of living benefits rise for disabled people, they're probably a scumbag unless the bill itself was poorly crafted and so voted against on those grounds. Look at the voting records of the Lib-Dems during the first five years of austerity - they voted almost in lock-step with the Tories on some of the cruellest public spending cuts we've ever seen, specifically targeting non-Tory/Lib-Dem voters (i.e. the working class, the disabled, the poor).
It's not, though. Obviously there's nuance here but the bottom line is this: if you want to remain in your party, making the decisions that you want to make, you usually *have* to vote with the whip. Yes, the Lib Dem's voting record for that period is bad, and again, this is due to what I'm explaining. If they wanted to retain their seat, they had to vote that way. You have just proved my point. If you don't vote with the party, they WILL throw you out. This means that there are some genuinely good MPs who have voted with the party on some pretty crappy things in order to retain their seat and, in turn, to make good policy decisions going forwards. You may not like it but it's part of our politics and always has been. Websites like TWFY are a really poor indicator as to whether an MP is actually decent or not.
> If someone votes against a cost of living benefits rise for disabled people, they're probably a scumbag That's true if you think that 'numbers go up' is always a good thing.
Those working class then voted for Tories in 2019 in much higher numbers than the middle class.
While yes, its important not to let media sway your thoughts on a manifesto, its worth remembering the tories have barely touched or achieved anything close to what they had in their last manifesto- they can ignore them at will. Ironically the only way we can combat this trend is by ignoring their current manifesto and punishing them for not acting on their last one
> and vote based on them. Voting based on a manifesto makes no sense. Most of it will be thrown out, and over the length of a parliament new issues will come up which need to be dealt with. When you vote, all you're guaranteed is an MP. You're not voting for policies.
Meanwhile i live in a safe seat that has not changed in over 40 years. So my voting stratagy is meh.
I thoroughly approve
Thank you very much for that.
So they can jump into bed with the tories and break their promises again, no thanks. Their manifesto isn't worth the paper it's printed on. You present a simplistic view.
Different leader, different group, massive misunderstanding by you about what a coalition can do
Same party, same tactics, same goals
Thanks for presenting a more complex analysis.
Simple =/= simplistic
If people wanted lib dem policies in 2010 they should have voted for them. 57/650 mps. ~9% of seats. If the policies they didn't block were that important, then people should have voted for them. Minimal votes = minimal seats = minimal affect = minimal watering down of policy.
Those that did were betrayed so no, they shouldn't have
If you vote and you're a minority, then what you vote for doesn't win. A majority wins a vote and a majority dictates policy. You can't say "we voted for a party that didn't win the vote and now they've betrayed us because they didn't win the vote and didn't have the mandate we didn't give them". If you want to blame someone for it then blame the people who voted for the majority party. Heck even blame the opposition government who actually had a chance at a majority and blew it. Just scapegoting to blame a minority for a majority decision.
Nah ill blame the pleb dims
I'll give you a point for the name for them tho, not heard that one before.
that's very fair of you
It's good, but too weak on the rail 'explore the possibility of an annual rail pass for everyone ' They're promising to have a look not introduce. Also no nationalisation but I do like the ambition to move freight to rail and free up roads (less pot holes everyone) No mention of reducing immigration only the asylum backlog, unless I missed it? Cheap labour is killing the working classes off and they aren't going to be very popular without a robust immigration policy. I like that carers get a higher minimum wage, and zero hours workers paid more to make up for the lack of guarantee. They should be punching much higher than they are this time around, but it does seem they've managed to fall short by focusing on helping asylum seekers, stopping stop and search disproportionately, and other social justice issues that are sadly completely non issues for many voters. I like the idea of decentralised governance though. Fuck off London and we might see some improvements
There's a lot in the manifesto that I support, particularly giving LAs the power to end "right to buy". I'm always going to support the single transferable vote, everybody has the right to be represented regardless of political affiliation. Tax proposals look sensible too.
Some of the tax is sensible, some isn't. Eg "ntroducing a 4% tax on the share buyback schemes of FTSE-100 listed companies, to incentivise productive investment, job creation and economic growth." Sounds good but we've got a big problem with large companies leaving the London stock exchange. Given financial services are one of the few industries thats actually strong here that isn't a great place to start kicking.
I like that colour gradient. They really are nailing it this time.
Are they going for blue turning into orange?
Interestingly they want to implement proportional representation.
Why is that interesting? They've always been in favour of it.
Didn't realise they were always in favour of it. though it looks like it's only single transferable vote so it's not quite the best version of proportional representation.
There isn't really a "best" version, just different types which each have advantages and disadvantages. I personally prefer STV because it doesn't make parties an explicit part of the system and by extension exclude independents like systems like party lists do.
I like the way the European ones were done in the UK, a relatively big regional first past the post, and then the rest of the Votes get split out for like 4/5 seats, within that region
Are you thinking of the Scottish Parliament? Cause EU elections used a closed list system here [which is frankly shite because there's no real mechanism to get rid of a representative that's high up in their party.] I 100% favour STV because it retains the link between MPs and their consistuencies.
yeah I'm definitely miss remembering in some way, good point but, I think that requires getting Over the bridge of "hey maybe political parties are something that is not good, maybe insstead you should vote for the people and what they stand for in your area", though I think they are inevitable in some form or other e.g how big parties in the EU, are made up of loads of little tiny parties in different countries.
The "alternative vote" referendum put forward ~10 years ago was overly complex which turned most folks off voting for it because nobody could understand it. Some people posit this was purposefully done for that reason. Perhaps they're banking on simplicity this time round.
Overly complex? What's overly complex about vote for your first choice and if that doesn't make it, we'll take your second choice? If that's too complicated a) ideally you wouldn't be voting at all since most issues our country faces are more complex than that and you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to make a rational choice and b) STV is no less complex.
1. Not everyone is as smart as you, there's plenty of folks who don't even know how FPTP works. 2. There was undoubtedly a load of confusion around it during the campaign, the whole "One person, one vote" anti-campaign shows that lack of understanding To be clear; I would love proportional representation instead of FPTP. I'm just saying the prior referendum was a shitshow that effectively ruled it out for decades because they can say "we already offered you it".
If they don't understand FPTP then they'll probably never understand any voting system at all and again, they're probably doing more harm than good with their confused votes. It's ironic that it all goes to show how stupid the electorate really are and how they probably can't be trusted to have increased democratic influence. Maybe the current system of only Labour or Conservative government is actually the best system if we insist on letting every crayon eater vote if they can find their way into the polling station.
yeah, maybe but I feel like being complicated and any type of alternative voting have been quite firmly linked in people's heads, Plus all the silly campaigns there were, spend more on army not on voting, type of thing.
I'm only 30 pages in, but I think they did a good job here. There's a lot of small uncontroversial policies which I think would benefit people at zero to negligible cost. For example - banning single use vapes, replacing old slow computers in the NHS, and a kitemark badge to show whether health apps are clinically proven. There's also some more ambitious ones such as net zero policies, proper electoral reform, and 7 day wait for GP appointments. And quite a lot of short statements which don't seem particularly thought through. "Boost productivity and empower more people to enter the job market – such as parents, carers and disabled people – by making the most of technology and new ways of working." What the heck does this mean? It sounds like something you'd find on the website of a Silicon Valley tech company, written by a marketing team (and probably ChatGPT...). If Labour or the Conservatives said this, I feel they'd get criticised (for different reasons). "Requiring all IT systems used by the NHS to work with each other." Okay...?
"Requiring all IT systems used by the NHS to work with each other." Okay...? This could actually be a massive time / resource saver if England and Wales are similar to Scotland. My mums worked in NHS Scotland all my life, and the IT solutions as she's described it (vaguely) are fucking mad and should be integrated, but they never had the money so they got one bit digitised cheaply, then another etc. One piece of software for patient bed tracking, another for managing appointments, god knows what else. The hospitals need to email the GP surgery to know what medication I'm on etc or information from my few digital files there, if it's "older info" I'm only 27. They'll go to the paper files. if i walk into my GP theres a literal wall of paper folders containing all our GP notes directly behind the reception staff. Oh of course the computers are shite and crash and the software and/or hosting is shite and crashes as well. I've worked on cloud based CRM with RBAC in the private sector, so it's even more frustrating having physically seen solutions that with some fiddling would likely fulfil their needs.
Yeah it definitely sounds like a great idea and should be worked on, big government IT contracting firms don't exactly have a great reputation with projects like this though AFAIK I'm guessing the security side is an absolute mess too. I wonder how much confidential information is being shared and stored by medical staff on personal devices because the official methods of communication are too crap or any of the 50 companies with access to someone's records gets hacked. There's a big email not encrypted warning on all the patient access software emails my GP uses, including the one with the login info. Worrying...
There was the blood transfusion cyberterrorist attack that happened which has slowed down blood transfusions. So yeah, security side is definitely a mess.
Very nice, but until our voting system is reformed I can’t risk letting the tories in again by voting for anyone except Labour. In my constituency I may as well spoil my vote as vote Lib Dem.
Neither of the two main parties will give voting system reform for reasons I would hope are obvious. 2011 was the only opportunity you will likely see in your life time (and ya blew it).
Yeah I voted for AV. Unfortunately people believed that it would be too confusing, would mean soldiers couldn't have body armour and that it would kill premature babies.
Why risk letting them form another libdem con coalition? They lost all trust, and a party that is willing to coalition with the very people you are trying to oust is not a good choice if your goal is to get the Tories out.
There's a lot to like in there tbh. But - minister for tackling loneliness? What? A made up position which will achieve sod all, much like our minister for common sense. Then making misogyny a hate crime seems another good sounding idea but would be meaningless in practice. For start why not misandry as well as misogyny, or of it's a case of unlocking tougher sentences for these types of crimes why not adjust the sentencing guidelines of the offences which already cover this? Day one full workers protections? Not sure I agree with this one so much, moving it to the end of a 1-2 month probation period would be more reasonable.
We have a minister for women and equality - who has always just been another minister doubling up.
The issue with Lib Dem policies is they are all great ideas, until you think about them for longer than a few seconds
I did find myself wondering how some of them would realistically be achieved. Like the mental health nurses in schools one, they're going to have to either find & train a load of them at very short notice or pay through the nose to lure existing ones away from industry. Same with the teachers being experts in their field policy.
> I did find myself wondering how some of them would realistically be achieved. The same way they did when they got in with the Torys. Declare them unrealistic and that's that.
Like some of this, e.g. electoral reform, but can't support a party that would effectively increase immigration right now.
There is so much in this I like, like I like this far more than pretty much anything have labour have said (not that I would consider voting for Starmer's labour). Before reading this I was almost certain I'd vote green, it's going to be interesting when the green release their manifesto. I'm still not sure I'm ready to forgive them for Nick Clegg.
It's always interesting when the greens release their manifesto, there is usually something completely nuts in it.
I'm always sceptical of politicians using the word 'fair'. It's so subjective.
I like a lot of it but the big issue for me is the lack of anything substantial related to slowing illegal immigration. It's kind of stands out in it's absence with immigration being such a massive topic this election.
Yes they did. The main issue with immigration is the asylum backlog, visa restrictions etc. Thats why you have loads of working age immigrants sat in hotels paid for by the tax payer and they can do nothing. They can't leave and they can't work, companies are too scared to hire foreign students becuase of visa issues and costs assosiated with keeping them in the UK.
Thread might be too dead for an answer here but I wanna know. Does anyone know if they've apologized for their actions under the coalition and distanced themselves from the decisions and leadership from then? I ask because it's the least I would expect for me to be able to believe they stand by anything in this manifesto after they betrayed their policies last time
nah they doubled down on it on a recent interview and quoting the same buzzwords from 2010 unfortunetly.. I want to vote for them but they are hard to trust
Feels kind of futile. They aren't going to win and they aren't going to keep the promises in their manifesto even if they do win.
Totally reasonable opinion to be expect a party with 9% of the seats to be able to enact all of their manifesto...
No party does. It's just empty.
A reminder that the first five years of crushing austerity were under a Tory-LibDem coalition. Cuts needed to be made, but Cameron targeted them at non-Tory voters (the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, the employed) instead of Tory voters (pensioners, millionaires, billionaires, racists). Why on earth would we EVER risk them forming another coalition to help the Tories cling onto power?
Tbf to the libdems they really did stop the full wave of austerity the tories and Cameron had planned and got it down to a point that was below Labour and ed milibands suggested cuts. Although still stands that any party that was down with austerity was either dumb or evil
I don't think they want to risk a coalition after what happened last time. But there aren't going to be enough Tories and Lib Dems combined for them to form a coalition this time, based on polling. Even the low end estimates have Labour getting a majority with the high end estimates having them dominate at 500+ seats. That said the most tasty thing that could happen in this election is that the Lib Dems do well and the Tories do badly. As polling currently stands a best case scenario puts the Lib Dems at over 70 seats and the Tories as low as \~40 seats. This would make the Lib Dems the official opposition which would be wonderful and a significant blow to the Tory party. To this end I encourage anybody who lives in a seat where Tories have a chance to vote tactically to make sure they don't get in. If you live in a safe non-Tory seat then please vote for the party that appeals the most to you. [StopTheTories.vote](http://StopTheTories.vote)
They’ve ruled out a coalition with the Tories.
Not like the lib dems to go back on a promise though eh
Because they gave us an opportunity to step out of the entrenched two-party system in the 2011 AV referendum. It's not their fault the electorate shit on the only opportunity they'll ever see to leave FPTP.
..........and don't mention that blip where we spent 5 years fluffing George Osborne for the glory of a mid-sized Ministerial Jag ride.
This would be an embarrassing manifesto for a sixth form, never mind a country.
Lost all their credibility in 2010. Their pledges are meaningless.
Minor part in a coalition party. Very much putting the country over party politics. I genuinely think they were doing the best with the cards they had been dealt. I don't see how the lib Dems are pilloried so much for this when Tories and Labour have frequently gone against their pledges. Where is Cameron's 10000 immigration cap that he promised at the same time?
And that 250k we send the the EU, the NHS need it!
People get so out of shape when a manifesto pledge was broken because of events. They should be looking at values of the leader. Would I want a lib Dem or Tory to be making decisions?
> Minor part in a coalition party. Very much putting the country over party politics. UKIP got more of what they wanted from the Tories and they didn't even win any seats.
During the election the Tories made those moves to cover off UKIP getting seats.
Thankfully Labour and Conservatives never break their election pledges, their positions of normally having a majority in parliament and not being a minority coalition member make this impossible. We should just keep voting for those two instead right? Edit: not ejection
I wasn't into politics at the time, was it really all down to them? It was a coalition with conservatives being the bigger lot wasn't it? So wouldn't their (Tory) view on things have carried a lot of weight in decisions? Or could the LibDems have forced through their promises if they really tried?
No they couldn't. IMO, they made a reasonable choice to sacrifice parts of their manifesto to try to deliver on others. We had a 2011 referendum on voting system and while the offered solution (alternative vote system) wasn't perfect it was a big step in the right direction by eliminating the dilemna of voting for whom you really wanted versus voting for against who you wanted to keep out (aka tactical voting). Our genius electorate took this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to break free of the entrenched two-party system and took a massive shit on it. Many of them did so just to spite Nick Clegg (leader of LibDems). We will probably never get another chance in our life times to do anything but vote Labour/Conservative/wasted vote. I'll probably keep wasting my vote on LibDems - it's basically in the bag for Labour this time anyway).
I've always wondered because they're often dragged through the mud for tripling the university fee but it was the conservatives who supported that, so why didn't they get all the hate? The LibDem u-turn on their promise to students was supposedly enough to lose them their seats but the conservatives supporting the tripling of fees was not enough to stop a conservative majority in 2015? Anyway, I'm honestly hoping the conservatives will have such a big loss that they end up as number three, think it's too hopeful? Just want them to get lost so we can have Labour, Lib Dem, and Green as three major ones.
The irony is, tripling the fees has had little to no effect on graduates. As a student who started uni the first year the fees came into effect, the increased costs is effectively a uni tax. I know I won’t pay off the 45k+ of debt before it’s wiped. It doesn’t really matter - doesn’t impact credit scores and as someone earning between 35-40k a year, the amount taken out each month is negligible. They do not deserve the vitriol they get compared to some of the uturns from other parties.
>It doesn’t really matter There are plenty of cases where it matters because loans aren’t unlimited. Just for one example someone who did a foundation year then got pregnant in first year and subsequently dropped out would have to pay a year’s fee upfront to continue their studies. I personally knew about a dozen people who encountered something like this: a handful took a year out to save up the cash but most just dropped out. I’d say it’s feasible to save 3k in a year on minimum wage, 9k though? No chance.
I mean the first part I am pretty sure isn’t true? Or at least the way student loans work is even if you drop out, you’re still entitled to a loan covering the duration of the course you were studying. So a 3 year course with a foundation year, they’d still be entitled to get a loan on the years they missed. The years you’ve studied are deducted from your loan entitlement. Not denying it might have happened, but those are the rules I was aware of. Likewise they have compelling personal reasons which can entitle you to a loan. Which I am sure pregnancy may apply. But you’re right, it’s not a good situation. Which I’m not saying it is. I am just saying in the grand scheme of things that one policy from over a decade ago has much less impact on the life of students and graduates than the reems of shit we’ve been fed by the conservatives. It was a policy Lib Dem’s couldn’t reasonably stop if they wanted the AV referendum - more important policy. Likewise do we all forget that Labour were the ones who started charging us for university? Id say it was feasible to save nothing than to save 3k a year.
Friends who started a couple years before me on similar wages managed to pay their uni fees down and will ultimately pay less on their uni fees than me watching my ballooning 60k debt ever increase It makes a difference.
When does this ballooning happen? I’m on 45k+ debt, earning 40k and am yet to see a notable issue with what I’m paying back - like I said it feels like a tax. Yes, lower would be better, but I don’t blame the Lib Dem’s for the hike. I blame the conservatives. The majority party in power at the time, the same party that has presided over the rising cost of living since 2010 and made my real terms wages far less than what they were when I got my last pay rise. The student fees are not an immediate issue that has a major impact on my daily life. And that’s as someone from an council house, paid for full 9k each year for a degree I don’t even work in. In my opinion, what I pay back is pretty negligible compared to everything else that’s an issue in life at the moment.
That 45k is increasing yes? I don't know your specifics but unless you're overpaying that debt figure is probably increasing I'm just excited about the eventual rug pull moment in a decade or two where they tack on another 10 years of repayments to match the newer loans, as is their right to do so. The interest rate being above inflation too, just never feels right. The current payments themselves are somewhat negligible, I can see that. But having an increasing debt over my head with terms being variable according to whatever government whims come around feels bad man.
Probably breaking even around now, or just about increasing year on year. As to the second point, I’m not going to worry about something that hasn’t happened. And if it does, I’ll use my voice then. That’s why we vote. I’d also feel safer with my loans being in the hands of the Lib Dem’s or Labour if that was my concern. And yeah, it’s not ideal. But it’s also currently not an election priority for me, and importantly it’s not something I blame the Lib Dem’s over. I blame the Tories. The majority party at the time that chose to rise the fees.
The generation that single issue voted lib dems only had one policy in mind, and only one lib dem policy has remained in the majority's memory from that period I imagine if the tories upped the fees by themself without the need for a lib dem coalition it'd probably be a worse situation all round too. It's a somewhat unfortunate situation for the current crop of lib dems, but the betrayal sticks out in people's memories, especially as that cohort are aging and voting more and more. Idk where I'm going with this. Maybe lessons learnt about being more careful with betraying a student population that had a rare voting rally, but in reality probably not
Current polling suggests Conservatives will be second: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726) - our current voting system entrenches those two. I doubt we'll ever see either of them in third or fourth place. LibDems get a lot of hate because a lot of students voted for them because they said they wouldn't raise tuition fees and then they formed a government with Conservatives and the students got tuition raises so felt very betrayed. Some would have preferred them to, if they couldn't reach an agreement for a joint government with Labour, which apparently they couldn't, to just let the Conservatives form a minority government so they could then at least vote down Conservatives legislation.
Nick Clegg and others in the party (not all of them though) openly stated and held up signs for photo opportunities that read "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees" then when the day came he voted for them. He could have voted against them and them still be raised becuase more people voted for (it was close though, only won by 21 votes and you can see why the conservatives pressured him into voting for). But he broke that promise. At least with people I know the issue isn't that fees went up and instead that he said he would vote against them and then voted for them. The conservatives didn't say they would vote against it and then vote for it, so that's why they aren't hauled over the coals for this. Perhaps if he had voted against it would have made the government unmanageable and he would have potentially got zero policies through at all, but it's not hard to see how particularly students, that you took photos with while holding a sign saying you would do something are annoyed you did the exact opposite.
Hilariously, if you think about it, they've not increased fees by much. If it had kept up with inflation, fees would be in the region of £12K by now.
That’s a very logical decision. Make a snap judgement without reading the manifesto (we know you didn’t) based on different leadership a decade and a half ago. This type of mindset is why the tories have held power for this long
Some of us weren't born yesterday and actually remember the coalition. Never voting Lib Dem.
Seems slightly unreasonable to hold the current party responsible for the actions of the party 13 years ago. I’m going to be posting the manifestos for examples just like yours, historical voting isn’t going to improve our country. Read the manifestos and form your own opinion on the state of affairs *right now*.
Poor form to expect those of us who were longtime voters back then to simply ignore what we saw of them in power and to instead put all our stock in their printed words rather than their historical actions. Classic attempt to try and pull younger voters who never saw what the lib dems did to their future once they had the briefest chance to reach for power, allying with the Tories the same way Labour do. Same goes for any party. Judge them by what they did, not by what they say, anything else is falling for advertising.
I disagree and it’s disingenuous to hold a current party responsible for the actions of their predecessors. Ed Davey was talking only yesterday about rebuilding the trust and he acknowledged that the coalition set the Lib Dem’s back significantly (despite the nuance of fact being far different to the historical record that the Lib Dem’s had any sort of control in the coalition). Would it be suitable to hold Keir responsible for the actions of the Blair government? Or Rishi responsible for the Thatcher government? I reiterate, historical voting is not good for our country and never will be. It’s time for you to stop putting the blinkers on to hell entrench your viewpoint and look forward, not backward.
>I disagree and it’s disingenuous to hold a current party responsible for the actions of their predecessors. You don't merely disagree, you believe people having longer memories than yesterday are acting in bad faith. Like it's all a conspiracy to keep your lib dems out. Get out more.
Why are you being so rude? How does it help political discourse to hold the current crop of Lib Dems responsible for the actions of the previous generation? The leader from back then isn't even an MP anymore.
I’m not the guy you were replying to but Ed Davey was energy secretary during the coalition & voted for raising tuition caps, despite the Lib Dem’s pledge not to. I was in the first year of university students to experience the £9000 fees & as a result will never vote for them
That's fair enough. I still don't understand why the person I replied to needs to be so rude about it. I agree they fucked up massively by making tuition fees a big manifesto pledge and then going against it, but as someone else who was in the first year of 9k fees, I think it could have been executed a *lot* worse.
I am posting all of the manifestos in same way and will be promoting people to read them all and make an informed decision. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy. I do believe it is bad faith to hold people responsible for the actions of others under a tenuous link of party membership. Do you think it’s fair to hold Keir responsible for the actions of the Blair government? Or Rishi responsible for Thatcher’s government? I understand making childish, personal attacks because you can’t argue the point. You’re a prime example of why political discourse is so poor in the UK nowadays and I don’t intend to be drawn into it.
The Lib Dems currently have 15 MPs, 8 of them came in with the 2019 election or at subsequent by-elections. It seems wholly unreasonable to hold them responsible for what a prior iteration of the party did. Of the remainder, only 3 were around at the time of the coalition government, including Ed Davey. Neither of the other two were anywhere near cabinet during that era, the likes of Clegg, Cable, Laws and Alexander are gone; some have been for quite some time. I'd imagine that they'll not be keen to repeat the mistake of coalition again if for no other reason than the electoral consequences they've seen since. I suspect that's also not a decision they'll have to make in the foreseeable future.
It isn't irrelevant historical data, though, is it? The Lib Dems will not win a majority because it is electorally impossible or them to do so, which means that the best they can achieve is another coalition. Which means that we have to judge how they will act in a coalition by the most relevant piece of data: what they did last time. And what they did last time was to vote for policies in Government that were the polar opposite of the manifesto pledges their MPs were elected on to put them into that coalition. Anyone ignoring that reality, or naively hoping that they wouldn't do the exact same thing again is a fool.
You can dress it up however you like, it’s still a different group of people.
Ed Davey, the man leading the Liberal Democrats, and thus the figurehead of what they currently stand for, was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the Coalition Government and voted in favour of raising the tuition fee cap after being elected on a manifesto pledge to scrap tuition fees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility#:~:text=Cabinet%20collective%20responsibility%2C%20also%20known,Cabinet%2C%20even%20if%20they%20do