Lib Dem manifesto

[anastaisia]

And to make sure we don't leave them out here's the Lib Dems Manifesto

First thoughts - far less waffle and on to policy quite quickly. Overuse of the work 'fair' though and I'm only on page 15!

Just to let you know we've added the LibDem manifesto to politics talk of the day - and we've updated their manifesto page here www.mumsnet.com/politics/liberal-democrats-policies

But the other two were in ordinary Discussions of the day, not a separate Politics one...

(I only remembered the Mumsnet politics section was here in the first place a couple of weeks back when I saw the "How would you feel if you woke up on May 7th..." thread in ordinary Discussions of the day. There have been a few political threads highlighted in there since, which is great. But please don't put the LD manifesto off in a separate Discussions of the day!)

eh? it's still in politics but is now also highlighted as a discussion of the day - but I see no-one's interested anyway!

I can fully understand why it is ridiculous to say it is fine for 16 year olds to get married and have a baby, yet are unable to drink alcohol, or watch certain films or drive a car. Rather than lower the age to 16 for watching and taking part in the pornographic industry, the age of consent and legal marriage should be raised to 18.

Some of it is a bit wild really - looks very expensive.

Then again some of it looks really quite interesting I think the idea of giving parents 18mths looks good as does the idea of streamlining the national curriculum.

Some other things are a bit wild like stopping the passports, not building power stations, creating a pan-examination to replace GCSEs AND A'levels ???, SEN tests for 5 year olds (thats a bit of a waste of money children really do develop at different rates - and it might prove destructively self fulfilling for some children and families) and finding loads of extra money to improve salaries in various public areas well I could go on.

Full of ideas though. I'm struggling to see how it will help us out of recession. But I kind of liked it.

I think I'll look at the Labour manifesto too - hadn't bothered so far.

I agree onebadbaby

I think the current system where you are classed as adult at all kinds of different ages is crazy. If you are old enough to be married and join the army, then you are surely old enough to choose to leave school, vote and watch porn.

So either lower some or raise the others.

Re. the money for the new buses and other commitments - the figures are at the back of the manifesto. Spending proposals followed by saving proposals. In the first year, the net increase in spending is 0 (in line with the policy of not cutting the deficit in the first year), in the second year it's -8,680m, third year -11,090 and so on.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any estimated figures in their manifesto for dealing with the deficit.

I think lots of good sound policies. So they cut the basic rate to 10,000 - this would mean it would pay for more people to work than to go on benefit (saving!) and save on admin. I earn a reasonable salary and as long as it balance out I was not paying more I would be happy if my tax was slightly higher on the higher part of my salary (not by too much but just to level it out!!)

This is a very well thought out manifesto.. Im impressed!

Re prisons, they are replacing short term sentences(not serious/violent crimes) with community sentences. This means the offenders are contributing to the community they have wronged in a positive way. it has been shown to reduce reoffending. Also it means we dont have to pay to build extra (expensive) prisons!

Re renewable energy, instead of the plans for coal/nuclear stations (and all the problems that go with them) they will invest in manufacturing industries (=jobs) to produce wind turbines and marine renewable energy, also enabling the UK to significantly reduce its emissions.

Lots of good ideas, and much better than the tories 'cloud cuckoo land millionaires' proposals. hmm I think lib dems may have won my vote..

So can anyone debate with me about the bank bonus policy (see my earlier message). I find that some of the Lib Dems policies do not seem to have been seriously examined.

Sorry Sessypoos, a lot of these people do not turn up for the community work, they just go from address to address hiding when the Police come knocking (it is one of the biggest wastes on Police resources known)and at the moment the Police aren't too bothered about it (just need to tick the box that says 'wasn't home when called'). Very low priority so they escape justice. Looks a good idea, but is massively flawed.

I was wondering last night how the next two debates would go. Would they cover again the topics already covered or would they move on to new topics.

Then it occured to me. No-one has mentioned EUROPE yet. THe LibDems used to be v v v pro Europe. Are they still?

How is a £2,500 bonus ridiculous?
My other half got an £80 bonus this year....we were well chuffed!!(obvously not a banker lol)
Bankers earn plenty and £2,500 is more than enough for a nice holiday or something!!
Sorry, I am poor and clearly have a different perspective from those that think it is too low.

fembear - LDs now have a lot more focus on need for reform in the EU (Clegg has written a fair bit on this). But from the position that you need to be actively in it to push reform in it.

"It makes so much sense to increase the personal allowance to 10k, think how much admin they will save on part time workers etc."

Yes, I think it was Vince Cable on radio the other day saying that the way Labour has been doing things has added to confusion and admin (eg the removal of the 10% tax band, then {under pressure} made certain groups eligible for 'refunds' - adding to complexity in means- tested benefits and making the whole thing an admin burden.

The 10,000 starting point makes for simplicity.

It's only when there's a big scandal that one hears how many tens of millions the bankers / traders deal with each day, and only when it all goes wrong and someone ends up losing more cash than a lottery winner gets.

With the macho attitude most have, they are ready to gamble on enormous odds, mainly so they can make a massive bonus at the end of the year.

Cut the bonus and put the salary up (base it on their past performance and then increase or decrease in following years), and they have less incentive to take such hazardous risks.

I don't know if that's behind the amount, or if it was a typo, but perhaps others can see it as a possible reason.

Seems like a good reason to me WebDude

Although like much of what LibDems say, the fact is we personally just can't afford to vote for them.

When Nick Clegg was on MN I asked him about childcare vouchers; he proposes to get rid of them which will cost us over 2k a yr.

I wanted to like them, I wanted to vote for them, but they have pledged in their manifesto to close the organisation DH works for!

At last a debate.

Just because you work for a bank does not make you greedy banker. The majority of staff process work and are not risk takers.

I come back to the employee who cooks the dinners for the so called "fat cats". Lets say he gets a bonus of £2600. Why should he be penalised in having to take shares in a company? Why should his future prosperity be linked to the fluctionations of a single share type. As all good financial advisers will tell you, it is better to spread risk than have all your money tied up into one risky share.

It is cheaper to give staff a once a year bonus linked to performance than to increase salary.

Hi growell, its the probation service that runs it, not the police. Where did you get your info from?

I just wish I was a millionaire conservative anker. Then Id probably live in barbados. or sorry was it bermuda?

Everyone voted in our post-debate poll - we're about to close.