UK General Election 2024

[ChrisC]

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.

The Lib Dem candidate for the Sherwood Forest constituency in Nottinghamshire has recently been announced as someone who lives in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. He is also a councillor on West Lindsey District Council in Lincolnshire and a Gainsborough Town Councillor. I know that it’s only the next county but he is not local to the Sherwood Forest area, so can he be described as a strong local champion? The fact that he is not more local has made me somewhat undecided about voting for him.

 

[jfollows]

The Labour candidate for Tatton is a councillor for the Lancaster Gate ward of Westminster Council, I don't know whether or not he plans on continuing to perform both roles if elected in Tatton. His biography shows that he grew up in my locality, though.

 

[nlogax]

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:

Oh for sure, I agree. At times like these there's a tendency for many to buy into every manifesto pledge written on the website or flyer without any pause for any degree of critical thought as to whether such promises are even remotely realistic.

The LD example you shared is less problematic - it doesn't promise anything concrete - but you're right..should they win they'll still be held to the anticipated aim of the fight not just to the fight itself, and within months.

 

[telstarbox]

As MPs are asked to consider national issues I don't have a problem with candidates coming from outside the constituency and bringing in experience. We all rely on decent services to a degree wherever we live. Having said that there seem to be more northern MPs with southern accents than the other way round

 

[deltic]

The Lib Dem candidate for the Sherwood Forest constituency in Nottinghamshire has recently been announced as someone who lives in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. He is also a councillor on West Lindsey District Council in Lincolnshire and a Gainsborough Town Councillor. I know that it’s only the next county but he is not local to the Sherwood Forest area, so can he be described as a strong local champion? The fact that he is not more local has made me somewhat undecided about voting for him.

Its about 20 miles away - not exactly remote - few MPs represent constituencies they have lived all their lives in. At least its not one of those Conservative Red Wall MPs who have moved a couple of hundred miles south to find a safer seat or the Tory Candidate in Surrey Heath who claimed to move into the constituency and is actually renting a AirBnB property.

 

[nw1]

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

I think that is what will happen. The Lib Dems are popular in a few select areas of the country which are socially liberal but economically centre-right, the sort of places that would have been safely Tory in the past but no longer. I'd expect a swathe of the southeast to go Lib Dem in addition to a few seats elsewhere, such as Hazel Grove. Perhaps the West Country too though that's a bit more questionable.

 

[JonathanH]

I think that is what will happen. The Lib Dems are popular in a few select areas of the country which are socially liberal but economically centre-right, the sort of places that would have been safely Tory in the past but no longer. I'd expect a swathe of the southeast to go Lib Dem in addition to a few seats elsewhere, such as Hazel Grove. Perhaps the West Country too though that's a bit more questionable.

I think one of the challenges for them is the game play of tactical voting in each constituency. In a number of areas, where the Liberal Democrat vote has diminished over the years, it is difficult to determine whether a Labour vote or Liberal Democrat vote is the best way to unseat the Conservative MP. Coming from third place in places where in the 1997 election they would be the natural tactical vote is going to be difficult.

 

[Kite159]

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

Especially as they are offering something different than Tory or Labour

 

[najaB]

Does that mean that Labour would also recognise Hamas as legitimate authority for (part of) Palestine?

That remains to be seen. If it was up to me, I would have a policy something along the lines of "Events in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank have made it clear that a new approach is required. A Labour government is committed to working with the government of Israel and a democratically-elected government of the Palestinian state to come to a resolution of the long-standing issues including security, borders, access to resources and governance which will allow citizens of both states to live in peace and enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

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.

Isn't the case that wholesale electricity prices are set to the highest generation cost - which is usually gas? I guess that's what they're referring to.

 

[HSTEd]

Isn't the case that wholesale electricity prices are set to the highest generation cost - which is usually gas? I guess that's what they're referring to.

Yes, but that is an inherent property of the electricity market.
Noone has yet come up with a particularly practical method of breaking this link, without fundamentally breaking the electricity market itself.

 

[3141]

Here's what the Lib Dem candidate for my constituency has published:-

Irrespective of your views, the Conservative government has let us all down, and we are determined that we build a future where everyone can fulfil their potential regardless of background. We want a future where our NHS and social care services get the funding they need to meet the needs of local people. We want a future where we build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure whilst also addressing the social housing crisis. Finally, but not least, we want a future that is environmentally friendly with greener energy and transport, a significant reduction in plastic waste and urgent action to reduce air and water pollution. We have been let down again and again by our Conservative MP and Conservative-run councils and we deserve better.

These are excellent aims, but he hasn't said anything about how how we're going to get to any of them, or what will be prioritised, or what may have to be given up on the way. At least he has provided more information than some of his competitors. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that I'll get a chance to speak to any of the candidates face-to-face.

"The right homes in the right places" is particularly interesting. By the time all the backyards that no-one wants them in have been ruled out, I wonder where they will go.

 

[dangie]

The problem is, that far too many people believe that a manifesto pledges the party to do exactly what it says on the tin...

As I don’t believe any of them, if one party says they are pledging to give us some sunny warm summer weather they’ll get my vote.

 

[WesternLancer]

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

For a Fair Deal

Liberal Democrats Manifesto 2024

www.libdems.org.uk

• 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.

So I assume that's a direct quote from the manifesto - yet when asked about this on Newsnight a short time ago by Kirsty Wark, their spokesperson stated clearly that they would not actually ban such flights at all, and this was not their intention, but instead they would put a greater level of tax on them to incentivize people to travel by train instead.

So what are we supposed to believe? The manifesto is wrong / mixed up / not actually been checked for accuracy....? Or the lib dems have a different understanding of the meaning of the word 'ban'.

Pretty poor performance IMHO.

I wonder how much of the rest of their list is similarly confused...

 

[najaB]

So what are we supposed to believe? The manifesto is wrong / mixed up / not actually been checked for accuracy....? Or the lib dems have a different understanding of the meaning of the word 'ban'.

Their proposal isn't an outright ban on short domestic flights. First off, for many domestic flights there isn't a direct rail option, for those where there is a direct rail option it doesn't take less than 2.5 hours, and even for those where one does exist it's only flights in conventionally-fuelled aircraft that would be banned.

 

[WesternLancer]

Their proposal isn't an outright ban on short domestic flights. First off, for many domestic flights there isn't a direct rail option, for those where there is a direct rail option it doesn't take less than 2.5 hours, and even for those where one does exist it's only flights in conventionally-fuelled aircraft that would be banned.

Do you mean their proposal isn’t a ban on short domestic flights even when the manifesto says it’s a ban on them?

Glad that’s cleared that one up.

And how many flights are not in conventionally fuelled aircraft? I guess just the ones not fuelled by bionic duckweed as roger ford might point out.

So how many flights is this proposal going to impact on, or perhaps how many routes? For a policy designed to help reduce carbon emissions I assume, will it deliver meaningful difference? And if not why put it in your manifesto.

 

[JamesT]

Do you mean their proposal isn’t a ban on short domestic flights even when the manifesto says it’s a ban on them?

Glad that’s cleared that one up.

And how many flights are not in conventionally fuelled aircraft? I guess just the ones not fuelled by bionic duckweed as roger ford might point out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0020592/newsnight-will-rishi-sunak-make-a-manifesto-gamble about 23 minutes in is the specific question.

I read the manifesto line the same as @WesternLancer that it proposed a ban subject to some exceptions. Whereas the LibDems response on the programme seem to be that it’s not even that but more taxes on domestic flights.

 

[najaB]

Do you mean their proposal isn’t a ban on short domestic flights even when the manifesto says it’s a ban on them?

It's a ban on some short domestic flights.

So how many flights is this proposal going to impact on, or perhaps how many routes? For a policy designed to help reduce carbon emissions I assume, will it deliver meaningful difference? And if not why put it in your manifesto.

It would take some figuring but, if you really wanted to know, both train timetables and airline schedules are available online. As to why put it in the manifesto: baby steps.

I read the manifesto line the same as @WesternLancer that it proposed a ban subject to some exceptions. Whereas the LibDems response on the programme seem to be that it’s not even that but more taxes on domestic flights.

I can't speak to what they said on TV, just it's not correct to say that they have a blanket ban. As you said, it's a ban on some flights.

And how many flights are not in conventionally fuelled aircraft? I guess just the ones not fuelled by bionic duckweed as roger ford might point out.

I'm going to bet that, as policies like are enacted by governments around the world, an increasing number. There have been numerous test (and some commercial) flights using SAF.

 

[WesternLancer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0020592/newsnight-will-rishi-sunak-make-a-manifesto-gamble about 23 minutes in is the specific question.

I read the manifesto line the same as @WesternLancer that it proposed a ban subject to some exceptions. Whereas the LibDems response on the programme seem to be that it’s not even that but more taxes on domestic flights.

Thanks for link. Yes exactly what I believed was stated in the interview.

Wider issue is Lib Dem’s pledges not really scrutinised properly because commentators do not think they would form a government so why bother doing that work. In 2015 we got cleggmania followed by near electoral wipe out when their voters discovered mr clegg was not the progressive they thought he was.

It's a ban on some short domestic flights.

It would take some figuring but, if you really wanted to know, both train timetables and airline schedules are available online. As to why put it in the manifesto: baby steps.

I can't speak to what they said on TV, just it's not correct to say that they have a blanket ban. As you said, it's a ban on some flights.

I'm going to bet that, as policies like are enacted by governments around the world, an increasing number. There have been numerous test (and some commercial) flights using SAF.

But the spokeswoman said there would be no ban at all. Just increased taxes on short flights. So why not state that in the manifesto? ‘We will increase taxes on short domestic flights where the journey can be undertaken by rail in less than 2.5 hours’. That would be clear and in line with what was said.

 

[Snow1964]

But the spokeswoman said there would be no ban at all. Just increased taxes on short flights. So why not state that in the manifesto? ‘We will increase taxes on short domestic flights where the journey can be undertaken by rail in less than 2.5 hours’. That would be clear and in line with what was said.

I would take the wording in the manifesto as definitive one

I think you are making a bit thing about spokeswoman getting something slightly wrong. If you had a few hours to learn a 100 page book, with each page having about 10 items, so roughly 1000 things, I suspect most people might slip up in precision on the detail of a specific point.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But the spokeswoman said there would be no ban at all. Just increased taxes on short flights. So why not state that in the manifesto? ‘We will increase taxes on short domestic flights where the journey can be undertaken by rail in less than 2.5 hours’. That would be clear and in line with what was said.

Agreed. I just watched that bit of the interview and Christine Jardine directly contradicted that bit of their manifesto - so I think we can deduce that she probably hasn't read their manifesto properly.

I'm not sure that a ban on flights (or even additional taxes on flights) is workable anyway if it's defined by where there is a short (<2.5 hours) train journey. People will just end up doing things like flying from London to Manchester via Amsterdam. And besides, how do you define the equivalent train journey? You might say that the train from London to Manchester takes less than 2.5 hours, but a pedant could point out that it's impossible to get from Heathrow Airport to Manchester Airport by train in less than 2.5 hours and therefore flights between those places should be allowed according to the rule.

 

[Citybreak1]

Does anybody know if there will be an emergency budget when Labour win? I heard they may put living wages up within first 100 days in office anybody see this happening?

 

[AntoniC]

I watched Sunak`s Panaorma interview earlier and he was still banging on about tax cuts - he needs to realise that some people (like me) are quite comfortable with paying more tax as long as those who are on lower incomes and Public Services are properly funded.
( As a Civil Servant I earn £28k pa).

 

[Snow1964]

Does anybody know if there will be an emergency budget when Labour win? I heard they may put living wages up within first 100 days in office anybody see this happening?

Historically when there is change of Government, tends to be a budget within a few weeks. The Government chooses the legislative timetable (except for relatively small number of designated days for opposition bills etc)

Living wages are not statutory, they are just figure that is calculated. The legal minimum wage can be amended by statutory instrument

 

[The Ham]

I watched Sunak`s Panaorma interview earlier and he was still banging on about tax cuts - he needs to realise that some people (like me) are quite comfortable with paying more tax as long as those who are on lower incomes and Public Services are properly funded.
( As a Civil Servant I earn £28k pa).

Indeed, for example changing the tax free allowance (to say £18,000) but putting the rate of tax up so that those in lower incomes would pay less, but those earning more would end up paying more (and before anyone says, something like this would impact on the amount of tax that I would pay).

 

[JamesT]

I watched Sunak`s Panaorma interview earlier and he was still banging on about tax cuts - he needs to realise that some people (like me) are quite comfortable with paying more tax as long as those who are on lower incomes and Public Services are properly funded.
( As a Civil Servant I earn £28k pa).

If you feel public services are underfunded and want to help out, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government has the details on how you can give more.

This page gives guidance to members of the public or private businesses who may wish to make a voluntary contribution to HM Government.

 

[WesternLancer]

I would take the wording in the manifesto as definitive one

I think you are making a bit thing about spokeswoman getting something slightly wrong. If you had a few hours to learn a 100 page book, with each page having about 10 items, so roughly 1000 things, I suspect most people might slip up in precision on the detail of a specific point.

Perhaps that’s a reasonable point. I assumed she was being asked about it because she was the transport spokesperson but it seems she has other roles. I see she is a Scottish mp so probably flies a lot in that role.

I still think it’s poor though and if a spokesperson for one of the two main parties this gaff would be well over the news today imho.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, for example changing the tax free allowance (to say £18,000) but putting the rate of tax up so that those in lower incomes would pay less, but those earning more would end up paying more (and before anyone says, something like this would impact on the amount of tax that I would pay).

Is there any indication of what the counterbalance is to Reform's idea of putting the personal allowance up to £20,000 is? Something would need to happen with the £100,000+ taper, but presumably there would need to be an increase in the rate of income tax too?

If you feel public services are underfunded and want to help out, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-donations-to-government has the details on how you can give more.

Are there any statistics on how much is contributed in that manner?

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

You mean he panicked at seeing that the right of French politics is gaining momentum, and wants to try and head it off at the pass before the right gained enough to win a general election? Maybe a better policy would be to tackle the policy reasons as to why this shift is taking place, because he'll just have the same problem again at their next election....

 

[dangie]

I watched Sunak`s Panaorma interview earlier and he was still banging on about tax cuts - he needs to realise that some people (like me) are quite comfortable with paying more tax as long as those who are on lower incomes and Public Services are properly funded.
( As a Civil Servant I earn £28k pa).

I agree. I’m by no means well off. How much in reality will a tax cut put into my pocket? Very little. I’d much rather see that same amount added onto my tax to help fund public services, hospitals, schools, transport etc etc. We all know which section of society tax cuts will benefit the most.

 

[JamesT]

Is there any indication of what the counterbalance is to Reform's idea of putting the personal allowance up to £20,000 is? Something would need to happen with the £100,000+ taper, but presumably there would need to be an increase in the rate of income tax too?

Reform are a small-state party, so they’re suggesting spending cuts to pay for the tax cuts.

Are there any statistics on how much is contributed in that manner?

https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec is a little old, but suggests essentially naff all. £8.3m over 17 years, when government spending is around £1tn.
(Copying from FT articles is a breach of their Ts&Cs)