Somehow I forgot to mention that this will be my first general election that I’m legally allowed to vote in! That’s why I put so much time into reading the manifestos and why you might have known more about a lot of the parties than I did going in.
I generally find the lib dem policies are the most appealing... but last few elections, I've just gone tactical voting because getting the Conservatives out has felt more important than voting for who I'd actually want to. Would love some form of PR voting system that would make that less of a necessary judgement :(
congrats! unfortunately you will find out that the manifestos don't matter just like the rest of us have 😂 They'll just change their mind and make policy up as they go along
Worth mentioning on the NHS part, lib Dems have many plans to help with mental health such as walk in clinics. Home has been libdem for as long as I've been alive, hope they finally get a chance as the bug guys at the table
I think your assessment of the Conservative plan on migration was unfair. The Tories have executed a brilliant long-term startegy to cut migration: running the economy into the ground, to make Britain less attractive to migrants over time.
I think people are missing the point of skilled workers. By any means stop illegal migrants yes! But why do you want to put a cap on skilled migrants and milk them to the bottom? I myself a skilled worker came to the UK to do my PhD and working as a scientist for past 5 years. I want to bring my wife and son now to the UK. Google how much it costs to bring a skilled worker dependent now. NHS alone is way high and considering how bad the services are, the cost is not at all justified. In total I need to spend a bit above 14 grand to bring them in and considering the cost of living, it will take years to just save that back. So what will happen? I will probably go to countries like Dubai and settle there. This is the mind set of most skilled workers now. Of course we have talented people in the UK but nowhere enough to fill the skilled worker space. UK has been a hub for high quality education and research. If this continues, this will become no more.
There is one major manifesto missing here. Highlights include: All Water bosses to take a dip in British rivers, to see how they like it. National service to be introduced for all former prime ministers. Wifi on trains that works. Trains that work. European countries to be invited to join the UK, creating a new ‘union of Europe’, if you will. I pledge to build at least one affordable house' The reintroduction of Ceefax. Minsters’ pay to be tied to that of nurses for the next 100 years. MPs to live in the area they wish to serve for 4 years before election, to improve local representation. Count Binface to represent the UK at Eurovision. and most importantly, croissants to be price-capped at £1.10, and 99 flakes to cost 99p.
As a child, the impression I got from politics was "everyone wants to vote for the Lib Dems, but no one will vote for them because they're scared of wasting their votes".
Yep! They actually have a chance now because the tories inadvertently caused the collapse of the 2 party system it’s now the one party system and a free for all to be the 2nd majority and opposition in parliament. Kinda exciting tbh
if everyone thinks this way nothing will change, vote for what you want and when people see the true numbers maybe that makes more people vote for their chosen party which would make a difference!
Nah screw them. They deserve their place at the moment. They were an active part of giving up 14 years of austerity. I actually think Lib Dem and Labour are trying to switch places right now outflanking each other on the left and right respectively.
The pushing of "all MPs are the same" is a false narrative pushed by those wishing to undermine democracy. All MPs are not the same. The underlying issue with modern day politics is that, in the UK, the political system is not fit for purpose leading currently to a corrupt and skewed Governmental system. Many MPs want what most people want, a much better system not open to abuse or corruption.
Feels like that episode of South Park - ‘Let’s get out and vote, let’s make our voices heard! We’ve been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd! It’s democracy in action, put your freedom to the test! Big fat turd or stupid douche? Which do you like best?’ Seems pretty dead on I think.
Lib Dem marketing probably seems bad because they are super local campaigners. They don’t have as many resources as Labour or Conservatives so instead choose to put the majority of time and resources into constituencies they can realistically win rather than a big national campaign. They are renowned for doing really well in local council elections and slowly building a profile in those areas.
Yeah, (as they keep telling us) the Lib Dems are basically neck and neck with the Tories in my area, so we get at least one leaflet a week from them. In terms of the other parties: - Tories: a lot early on (including before the election was announced), but they've tailed off more recently (not that it makes a difference as theirs just go straight in the recycling anyway). - Labour: one or two, mostly talking about the local candidate, but they don't poll well locally and they don't want the Tory candidate to get in because they lured too many people away from the Lib Dems. - Reform: literally one (which also went straight in the recycling). - Greens: ironically, three identical leaflets that all came through the door at the same time (not very environmentally friendly...).
Yes I received a personally addressed letter from Libdem talking about their position and concerns and i was like. Oh at least they have a personal touch even though I barely read it. I might reread it now!
he's really good at marketing to his local councils like i am only 17 so not aloud to vote yet but i receved a personally adresed letter as to why they would be good, as a way to encorage me for the next election in a couple years
@@hannahk1306they definitely are comparbale to the tories, just slightly more left. the conservatives are centre right, liddems are far worse as they are centrists, who famounsly do fuck all
While I may not agree with all of your takes, I appreciate all the work you must have put into this, so thank you! Reading all those manifestos must have been painful!
You definitely can't trust Reform, especially with the seeming lack of any way to fund many their plans; but they know they won't be realistically able to demand all their plans, and voters probably won't realise or care; maybe Reform can just influence policy a little depending how close they get to Tories on vote share - or to the next party down (note that UKIP were a major reason why we had the EU referendum in the first place, even without owning a single seat, just cos Tories got nervous about losing seats and influence to them, UKIP owned many of the previous BNP voters and were the most realistic way to vote further right than Tory for those inclined).
@@jgbreezer I disagree. The Green Party has the largest amount of false promises here shortly behind Lib Dems and Conservatives. Reform I could see being the most likely to come through with their policies for better or worse. But honestly with the state the country is in right now, any change would likely be a welcomed one.
so true, especially when so many of them want to quit early and retire for their huge monthly retirement payment. Feels like whoever wins, the same people are actually running it all and only care about money for themselves. We already know we can't trust Labour or conservative from past experience, so hoping someone else at least wins.
I was also most impressed by the Lib Dem manifesto, somewhat ironically given their promise of reforming the voting system to be more representative, I can’t justify voting for them, because there is no way they will ever come close to winning in my area. The whole system is so antiquated.
PolyMatter mentioned once in a Singapore video that the gap in approval vs actual votes of their government could be because some citizens view their vote as a way to send a message or an "opinion poll". My mindset is the same in hopes that the percentage points are at least viewed in the "hmn, they didn't do too bad in the polling actually" threshold rather than "it's so low it's never gonna happen next time".
To be fair to the Green Party I wouldn't call the destruction of vast ancient woodlands a few "trees" or "a leaf" especially in a nature depleted country like ours facing a climate emergency. There has been a lot of dispute in the past about the best way forward. Years ago when HS2 was a big thing in the media one rail engineer wrote an article saying in so many words that upgrading the infrastructure that was already there would've been less costly. The reasons given for its cancellation in 2023 were ballooning costs and accusations of mismanagement. £65bn has been spent; makes you wonder what the private contractors involved did with the money given that they went over-budget and over-time.
he is unless he has an essential job I don't know about hes just a youtuber whos only really providing the government with tax they can waste otherwise he is just using services and taking up housing brits could have
@@archiebald4717yeah sure just get rid of all management and admin for one of the largest employers in the UK. How do you think that work is going to be done?
I think this part is a bit more nuanced that it first appears. I have a friend who is trained as a GP, and she does something like 4 hours work for the NHS per week (consultations/referrals on the 111 service) . The rest of her week, she does private work and cosmetic procedures. So I believe the policy is to incentivise NHS staff who split their time between public and private work to re-orientate their hours to do more work directly for the NHS.
How will this be done when only the rich can afford university, and therefore the training necessary? Right now, we're exploiting countries which actually give their poorer citizens a chance, by taking all their doctors away from them.
@@krissyg7026 Well what middle management jobs would you cut? I remember when they privatised the catering in my District Health Authority. The quality went down, the costs went up. Two of the three senior managers' jobs changed, they were now responsible for overseeing the new contractors. One senior manager was made redundant. Most of the staff were offered their old jobs, at a lower wage and no pension. Naturally some the better of the kitchen staff declined and got better jobs elsewhere.
The fact that the leader's name is Ed Davey, not Ed Davies, but I know several people that have made that exact mistake speaks volumes about how bad the Lib Dems are at marketing 😂
The Lib Dems are only focusing on about 80 seats where they finished second last time. If you’re not in one of those seats you probably won’t hear much from them.
@@GingerinMelbourneI know the paddle boarding stunt was done on Windermere cos Tim Farron is almost certain to get re-elected. I was up last weekend and it was a nice change not to see Tory banners everywhere.
So an important distinction that I like about the green parties manifesto is that they are actually proposing a wealth tax. I just looked to remind myself and it is a 1% tax on those whose net worth is £10Mil and up. This would be massive because rich people can avoid most taxes by simply letting their assets appretiate while not actually using any more money then an average person. Personally this alone made their tax policy worth 2 points using your system XD
The UK has some of the highest rates on millionaires leaving the country right now so as much as I like this idea I don't know how well it will work as they will probably try to claim citizenship elsewhere and find those tax loopholes. I feel like realistically though it would have to be something like 0.5% or lower as 1% is an absurd amount of money. let's say someone has a net worth of 5 million that means they would lose an extra £50,000 a year on top of other taxes and if they maintain that value it is repeated which means in just 20 years that is over a million pounds which is a fifth of their worth. (yes I know net worth would change year on year but you get my point) Essentially what I'm saying is that paying 1% on top of all normal taxes is an incredible amount of money to just go straight to the government and is fairly unrealistic to ever get through parliament unless it is heavily altered or used a lower tax. I feel like the better solution which yes is the boring one is to tax the higher band more.
@@magicanimalboy1 you are missing the fact that the tax being proposed here is a WEALTH tax, not an income tax; and is therefore applied to the assets they own such as houses, infrastructure etc. People affected by the tax could move to another country of course but their assets are much harder to move and would still be taxed no matter where they relocate to
@@robertwinslade3104 I used the wrong terminology by talking about net worth instead of wealth as they are similar but not the same however if you read through it with that in mind my point still stands.
For the greens against HS2 because of trees. The trees that have already been cut down or would be cut down for completing HS2 would be ancient woodland. These woodlands are becoming increasingly rare and once they're gone they are gone for good. We can not replace them with new plantations, they are irreplaceable! I work as an ecologist and whenever HS2 is mentioned around my colleagues we all grimace and hate the whole thing because of it destroying a bunch of the very few ancient woodlands we have left in this country. Just so everyone understands the reasoning of the greens for not wanting HS2
every woodland is ancient in various contexts. there are over 50,000 and hs2 impacts 25ish. even if it affected 1000, the long term economic and social benefit of hs2 trumps the environmental effects of those specific trees, the rarity of which the majority of the general public does not care about. The greens want to do nothing ever again and it's jarring.
@@Jmaster009 I'm not sure that the ignorance of the general public is the right metric for deciding the value of those trees and/or woodlands, indeed, that's the point of representative democracy, to have those that do know make the appropriate case to the decision-makers. The problem is that the woodlands don't have representatives, much less representatives for each key ecological niche contained therein.
The cap on political donations is a huge one. Personally, I'd completely ban donations from corporations and unions. I'd also put a limit per person of something like £100, and ban anyone not eligible to vote in the UK election from funding it. If you want to spend a lot of money on your campaign, then you should have to convince enough ordinary people to support you, not 5 to 10 billionaires. The proportional representation is a great policy. Unfortunately, that was in the Lib Dems' manifesto in 2010 and they sold everyone out for a shot at power, basically agreeing to a ridiculous Alternative Vote system that even they didn't want, in exchange for enabling the worst of the Tories' austerity.
There are already laws about not allowing foreign money to fund election campaigns; that was what the fuss was about wrt Brexit and Russian money. We allow our media to be owned and run by foreign interests; people who don’t pay tax in the U.K. should not have such a huge influence on our elections.
As a union member, I decide myself that some of my membership fee goes to my unions political fund to help Labour. It's from the will of the membership so I would not ban that element.
I would also add, raise MPs salaries, but make it illegal for them to have any secondary employment or paid work. And ban gifts over £100 in value. They should only be there to serve their constituents.
@@andrewdavies3091 rather than increasing their salaries I’d give them the median national wage to incentivise them to increase wages for the majority.
When you mentioned the Greens and Nuclear, I was just like "Yes!" in my head, seriously it feels like the Greens are stuck in the 80s/90s when it comes to their policies on Nuclear, things have changed since then but they haven't. I mean if they really expect everyone in the UK to get an electric car and our grid to be able to cope without having to burn extra coal at peak times, then we will occasionally need Nuclear (as well as solar and wind).
Though I agree that nuclear can be a part of a greener future. The old troupe of "peak hours" is a pretty poor reason to consider it. First, nuclear is quite bad at sudden changes and is not able to increase or decrease even close to fast. And more importantly, there are other and better ways of dealing with peak hour highs. If you want an easy ex. look up a vid from Simon Clack called "The green future of coal mining". The title is a bit silly, but make more sense when you have seen it.
Except they don't expect everyone to get an Electric Car. They expect to improve public transport services and for people to have reduced or no need for a personal car (or support the rise of car share practices/hiring for when one is actually needed). The other commentor makes the correct point of Nuclear being useless for matching peak demand... you have to run a Nuclear plant at full output 100% (almost) of the time for it to be economical. Tidal Power is the greener alternative that we should be exploring in terms of producing a stable constant power input to the system where we can then balance on top with other technologies.
I'm a green in public office and many of us are working to change the stance on nuclear! Party policy is democratically agreed and I suspect nuclear will change in the next conference or two
@@josephmcmahon7470 nuclear is to cover base load not peak hours. Renewables are a mixture of unreliable, and fluctuating. The best solution which is possible with existing tech is nuclear replacing base load currently covered by gas, with wind and solar making up the main production, and using hydroelectric storage to cover leak hours or the delay as nuclear ramps up or down. Tidal would be great and can be what replaces nuclear as base load but the tech and scale doesn’t exist
My politics a-level teacher’s catchphrase was “Manifestos are not ✨legally binding✨” She also made us do jazz hands whenever she mentioned that. Seriously though, governments do not have to actually commit to what they promise in manifestos. Granted, they have the consequence of losing trust amongst the electorate (+ possibly votes) but they have no legal consequences.
But sometimes they cannot do things if they haven't put them in their manifesto, see the whole tory/Rwanda deal & how that went through the House of Lords. Anyway, refUK is a Ltd & they call their manifesto a contract. Can they be sued now?
It's more that if it's not in your manifesto it creates problems. They're not legally binding but you have to justify not doing things or doing something different.
I think Reform is by far the most likely to actually come through with what they have in their manifesto and cutting taxes is 100% what people should be wanting right now regardless of how you feel about migration. My biggest gripe is their backward way of looking at the Drug problem but we'll see. In my opinion, the legalization of Marijuana could be hugely beneficial to the UK economy and drop the crime rates significantly despite how funny it sounds. Wish there was ever a party that was genuinely centered/progressive but also used common sense.
I think it should be a binding contract...especially when some manifestos say "contract with the people" or something like that. Punishment can be the same for perjury and fraud. If in coalition, which is odd in Britain because of their colonial era voting system, they can rank the manifesto pledges in the order they want and this way, if 2 parties in coalition, party A gets top half of what they pledged, Party B gets top half of what they pledged
I think the Liberal Democrat’s manifesto offers some solid policies and I’m hoping they’ll form the opposition if only to imagine 5 years of the Tories not having a stranglehold on the media discourse. Saying all of that I would probably never vote for the Lib Dem’s given their track record in the coalition. Ed Davey himself was in the cabinet signing off on Cameron and Osborne’s spending cuts. Austerity, that the Lib Dem’s supported, is a huge reason why our economy is in such a massive decline with stagnant wages, failing public services and lower standards of living. The cost of living crisis is only currently reported in the media because it affects middle class people like those with mortgages, but before that austerity was already pushing people into poverty with the UN finding the government of coalition responsible for ‘grave and systematic violations of the human rights of persons with disabilities’. The Lib Dem’s complicity and involvement in the worst government of this century has to be remembered.
I think the lib dems have learnt their lesson, they lost more than half seats after that coalition and in the 14 years since I think the lib dems should have another go.
Nick Clegg's decision to jump into bed with Cameron and Osborne, rather than Gordon Brown (whom he had a lot more in common with - I assume the Tories offered them more token front-bench posts) started the horrific shit-show of the last 14 years. It was a monumentally stupid decision that almost destroyed the Lib-Dems . I hope they've learned the fundamental lesson of politics - Never trust a Tory.
Nick Clegg got a hospital pass that election. All choices were bad, to into government with the Tories and accept some had policies, prop up Gordon Brown who was massively unpopular, or chicken out of power completely. Going in with the Tories was the least worst option.
Yet in the coalition the lib Dems actually got more manifesto pledges implemented than the Tories! The problem was they also gave up some of their landmark policies (tuition fees anyone?) and the Tories spin machine was so much better so they claimed credit for all of the good ideas the lib Dems pushed for whilst letting them get blamed for all of the shite...
British election manifestos are not worth the paper they are printed on as they are not contracts and not enforceable in law. In 1981, Lord Denning said "A manifesto issued by a political party - in order to get votes - is not to be taken as gospel… It may contain - and often does contain - promises or proposals that are quite unworkable.". Even this notwithstanding, there is no legal principle of “legitimate expectation” and in any case, the Courts have ruled themselves out of jurisdiction saying it is a matter for Parliament. Hence, why manifestos are a total waste of time.
manifestos may not be legally enforced, but its a bit much to say that they're completely worthless. completely ignoring your manifesto pledges gives ammunition to the other parties during the next election cycle, since pointing out that you failed to meet or even attempt your pledges is a pretty good line, so parties that want to stay in power have motivation to at least attempt to follow their manifesto.
But Nigel tells us Reform don't have a manifesto, they are offering a "Contract"; it's even printed on the front cover of their document. Does this mean we could hold Reform to this contract and what would the penalties be for failure?🤔
@kidflersh7807 you know every banknote has a serial number and almost every shop has a camera above the till and every cash machine certainly does. How is cash anonymous in reality
My main issue with cashlessnes is the fragility of digital payment methods. It's scure when you're sitting at a computer inputting details, but real purchasing power is "out-and-about" purchasing power, which means using a card or more likely your phone. Recently I had the last leg of a trip to Turkey go a little sour because my phone had a fit and refused to cooperate. I had to pull out many excessive stops and beg favours to get back home on time, and I couldn't make the gift purchases I wanted for my family. I was told confidently that obtaining Lira cash-in-hand would be a waste of time, and for 70+% of the trip that was true, but it would have come in clutc during that minor crisis at the end. Think about how bad it COULD have been if my phone went schizo earlier. (hell: I couldn't even buy some snacks on the plane back home because flights are generally allergic to cash-in-hand from outdated COVID-era rules. I had £20 on me on an easyjet flight and it was worthless!)
Money, be it cash or digital stands and falls with the Goverment issuing it. If you want individual freedom, maybe you'd be better of with something solid, like gold. So go ahead; start digging that bank vault in your backyard. Wait do you rent or do you own the ground you live on?
It’s a grammatical rule in the UK and the USA that if a word is plural then the short of that word should be plural as well. Mathematics - Maths. So Americans are pronouncing it badly.
Rent to buy for social housing is actually a terrible policy without increasing social housing stock. The Right to Buy schemes have depleted social housing stock over the years because houses get taken off the market before they get replaced. Its one of the biggest reasons local authorities don't have enough social housing anymore. IMO, it's the sorta thing that sounds nice and warm, but when you think about it, it causes more problems than it solves.
The Right to Buy scheme privatized precious social housing stock during a time when there was no intention to build more social housing. It was devised and implemented under Thatcher's watch. At first sight, it seems like it's significantly better to allow tenants to buy their home rather than big corporations or investors, however, some of these tenants eventually became landlords and rented their homes at significant cost to their new tenants, recreating the problem social housing is meant to solve. Furthermore, these former tenants could sell their homes to big corporations and speculative investors once certain conditions were met. As you can imagine, housing costs grew significantly. Point being, the goal of social housing is to house people in a manner that reaffirms their dignity, integrity, and humanity (i.e. the housing should be high quality and desirable, and should never be exploitative nor should it ever be considered charity). The Right to Buy scheme undercuts the foundation of social housing and serves to privatize a public good at great cost to the key demographic social housing is suppose to serve: the public.
So build more housing. Genuinely what’s the issue? It sounds like people who needed a home we’re able to buy a home and thus build wealth off of their new found property. That’s good! That’s how you build generational wealth. If you want poor people to stay poor forever in social housing then sure never let them buy, but personally I would like to take people out of poverty- not trap them. Right to buy isn’t the issue here, it’s the lack of new social housing being built as stated by you. So, I’m confused why you’re blaming right to buy when you already explained the real issue.
@@ronstevenson4792personal property =/= privatization. Privatization only refers to when public entities are bought by corporations, not someone buying their own house. If housing stock is genuinely such an issue then mandate that if any person moves from their right to buy house then they can only sell it back to the government. And mandate all new developments should have a minimum of 30% social housing and tax buffs for those that build even more. Right to buy can implemented and done well, it’s just Thatcher got to it first and made it bad on purpose because she was a witch
@@soymilkman the issue with right to buy / rent to buy is mostly in the cities: if local authorities build on land they own, and then are required to sell that on to their tenants, the local authority will gradually lose the land they can provide/build social housing on in areas that people need to live to be able to access their workplaces/services, and the likelihood of local authorities buying more land inside cities from private ownership to build on would be prohibitively expensive. In smaller towns and more rural areas where there is more possibilities /land is cheaper to purchase, it's less of an issue (although Local Authorities having the available funds to purchase more land from private ownership on top of the cost of building is still a concern).
One point of note about making road tax proportional to vehicle weight, however, is that road wear isn't proportional to vehicle weight... it's propositional to vehicle weight _to the fourth power_ !! So while this policy is a step in the right direction, it's _still_ overtaxing small vehicles/subsidising large vehicles to a ludicrous degree.
Light vehicles are a choice cars Large vehicles are functional buses and lorries its a policy that should be reversed tax the small cars like the luxury items they are
For me an important part of the manifesto was how the individual party’s intend to fund their policies. From that the Lib Dem’s, Greens and Reform proposals appear unrealistic at best, totally ridiculous at worst. Without a credible means to fund a programme all you have is a wish list.
Access to NHS dentistry is currently so bad that my brother, who left home 5 years ago and currently lives 200 miles away, has the same dentist as myself because he wasn't able to find one with any spaces for NHS patients within a reasonable distance (1 hour drive) of either his previous address or his current one, so he books 2 days off work and stays overnight at our parents house. The dental surgery, on a university campus, is a 10-15 minute walk from my house and has 1 NHS dentist alongside 4 private ones and 1 for exclusive use by university students and staff. If you were to ring up today (2/7) you'd have a 6 week wait to see the NHS dentist but under 48 hours to see a private one.
@@YujiUedaFan and I found out (at my dentist appointment) that they've got a waiting list of some 4,500 people to get onto the books of the NHS dentist, but the private dentists are undersubscribed.
The NHS surcharge is now over £1k/year. This year alone it was increased by over 60%. Also, as a visa holder myself I can assure everyone I cannot claim benefits. This is the weirdest thing to come from reform because it's just a blatant lie.
Hi Evan, as someone involved with the project that eventually was called 'HS2' I need to point out that it was NEVER about improving passenger transport to the North, but to free up rail pathways to allow for high speed freight traffic. It was only ever a 'High Speed' line as it made no (minimal) difference to the construction costs.
If was never about passenger transport then why the hell did everyone who has ever talked about it besides you outright said, implied and intermated that it was about passenger transport 😂😂😂😂😂
Because its called "High Speed 2". The real point is that the slow freight trains can use more of the current slow lines when the passenger services move away from them. Doesn't take a genius to be honest.
So having a high speed PASSENGER line to the north was never about improving PASSENGER transportation in the north? How does that work? Were they going to run slower trains on HS2 than the existing lines?
That’s not true. Also it is a GOOD thing to separate freight and passenger transit. Speeds up passenger trains, lessens delays, increases the frequency you can run those trains. And if it improves freight rail, that’s good too if it means less semi trucks on the roads
Yeah as someone from the north who was suppose to benefit from HS2 (the line is no longer coming to the north west), I was always against it. Rather than “improving the north” it would’ve just funnelled more people into London further destroying our communities. We need more rail connections east to west, actually connect the entirety of the uk rather than having yet another line to London. I think people often forget how centralised the uk is around London
Evan ULEZ is a nightmare to those who can't afford a newer vehicle. It's not like my 2014 van is puking dinosaur guts everywhere, it's still got a DPF. My car still has a cat. These aren't your old age carburetted sheds with no emissions equipment; ULEZ is just a cash grab.
@@evan do you think they'll mind if I take 7 bouncy castles, 7 blowers, 14 mats, soft play and all the other bits I use my van for on there?... Or can we finally stop criticising vehicles like they're the worst thing ever when they are a huge portion of why modern society even functions
Sorry but rejecting cashless sociaty is common sense especially with the increase in hacking incidents also had many cases of a card reader stop working in shops both working in them and as a customer not saying burn the payment system and go back to only cash just you are always better with both same with paper work and pretty much everything else haveing everything digital is like using a loaded shotgun for a walking stick sooner or later it will go off and blow your foot off
24:50 as much as we both dislike Reform, your reading comprehension has failed you. The heading is "abolish IHT for all estates under £2m". That means estates above two million pounds in value would still pay inheritance tax. The billionaires and anyone with more than two millions would still pay IHT.
The ‘rent to buy’ scheme is sounding very similar to the ‘right to buy’ scheme which while brilliant on paper has really decreased the social housing available. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but won’t this do the same?
@@eattherich9215it is the same, it's the exact same thing Thatcher sold to the public that fucked over housing. because the lib dems are tories, it's as simple as that, there is no such thing as a centrist
The issue about Reform and Taxation is that a smaller percentage of a bigger amount can be more money - and if you reduce tax burden, that automatically stimulates the economy, thus increasing the total taxation take. We are over taxed to a point that it is causing economic slow down. I think Reform's instinct is right - some sizable tax cuts would light the afterburners on the economy. Total GDP goes up - total government take goes up.
except reform wouldn't tax cut the poor the most, it would go to the wealthy and the corporations, if you can't see that im worried for you, those assholes lie as much as trump
Lib dems have the best manifesto- I wish Labour would allow another vote on EU membership, but we need to do anything possible to block Reform UK, so many minorities (genger, LGBTQ, race, age) would lose all their equality rights, that and allowing full freedom of speech would cause unlimited hate with zero consequences
@@infidelcastro5129 the percentages in the popular vote will influence how much representation each party gets on political television for the next 5 years. If you're in a safe conservative seat, you're somewhat freed from the responsibilities of tactical voting, and can vote for whoever best aligns with your views. Also you might want to check the yougov MPR projections, some seats which are normally safe conservative are predicted to change hands. The swing away from the conservatives at this election is huge.
I will say, as a disabled trans person, lib dems also get points from me for their policies around queer rights, rights for carers of disbaled people (especially in relation to carers allowance payments) and disability benefits as a whole,
Aye, but in the same respect, they lose points for going along with the very worst bits of austerity, which killed many thousands of our disabled citizens. I'm not really mad at them for tripling uni fees, I'm mad at them for making promises on fees just to get into power, and then using that power to vote for so many policies that killed or made life significantly worse for so many of the most vulnerable.
except they are lying. because they are centrists aka right leaning assholes who will happily side with the tories over labour. they dont need solid policies they trick people into voting for them then go directly against there police, vote green or Labour not those Tory assholes
UK is an island and doesn't need nuclear with geothermal hydrothermal heliothermal PLUS wind etc. Tidal power development is particularly large in the UK as well. 5m down it's 12C, there's your air conditioning. Turns Out you were sitting on it the whole time, right now, no nukes under you either
Not one mention on the massive deficit this country has. The UK now has more debt than the country makes per a year. There is no money! Of course Evan is from the land of the free which is also drowning in a sea of debt. Debt is a very popular lifestyle choice in the US.
I reviewed manifestos also and came to a similar conclusion to you. Lib Dems seem to have the most pragmatic approach to what is largely achievable in reality without getting too outlandish.
The Lib Dem's manifesto isn't pragmatic and completely ignores the issues that have caused the current problems. They are also being very sly with their wording so they are promising less that you'd think. Guaranteeing GPs appointments sounds great but it can only be achieved one of three ways 1. negotiating with the GMC (doctors union) which is easily the most powerful union in the county, to get them to agree to provide the appointments, the GMC always win so this is unlikely. 2. Do what usually happens when negotiating with GPs pay them a bunch more money for a service they should be providing anyway and don't include any performance mesures to ensure they actually do the work. and they always win. 3. Like the tories pay GPs to employ more Physician Assistants who aren't actually fully qualified doctors let alone GPs. They have talked a lot about care but they have only pledged 'personal care' and nothing else. Evey time they are very specific 'personal care' this is only the quick visit in home care and the cheapest care if you are paying out of pocket and does not include any of the more complicated in home care, restbite care or nursing homes. So not really tackling the issue while they talk about it like it's an important issue for them.
Wanting to sell off more social housing would be a disaster. Even Thatcher didn’t allow them to sell for x amount of years, when they sold they went to landlords and now we’ve no cheap housing. Idiotic move and I hope no one is stupid to hand them power again. Labours increase in social housing appears the only sane proposal
@@just2lovable Agreed, social housing sales to the extent they are allowed MUST be matched by new construction replacements. Sadly this has rarely been the case. Personally, I'd ring fence any profits from sales for a social housing fund for future generations. This must become a problem that used to exist in the old days.
@@sangfroidian5451 I remember at the time thinking it was a genius idea as the people around me couldn’t afford a home otherwise. Then the horror realising there were no new social housing plans and seeing the waiting times for a home sky rocket! If they did right to buy again then you’re right, they’d have to drastically increase stock first and continue to do so.
except they lie, then copy the tories. they are centrists, which literally just means rhey are centre right. as you should know. lib dem will lie about anything the same way they lie about there political ideology, its not centrist, it's right and they wont achieve any of it
Excellent summary! I voted (postally & tactically) for the LDs mainly to get the Tories out but am actually impressed with their current manifesto - at times left of Labour and more progressive than the Greens. I get that they can promise more because they won't be the heavy lifters on implementation, but hoping they become the official opposition.
the LDs lie as much as the tories, only minorly less than reform, a vote for them is a vote for the tories, and not because it's a vote down the drain, bur because lib dems would 99 times out of a hundred, side with the Tories over labour. they are a right leaning party pretending to be centrist and lying in there policies
Let's keep reading the empty promises in the manifesto - truer words my friend. I would like to point out that HS2 was planned to go through world heritage sites. For instance, it was going to run through stone henge which for some of us is the equivalent to running a Trainline through an ancient cathedral. HS2 was a great idea, but rather than route it round existing infrastructure to prevent further environmental and cultural damage they decided to run it through a heritage site. You should come to the south west, you'll see how important these sites are to the locals here. We have rituals we do on summer solstice, and these rituals have been done for longer than we have had written records
Aye, I love the South West But... more important than HS2 Jam then cream... me says... so is it war with the Northeast or alliance? 😊 ❤ from Northeast England ❤️
I'm voting Greens. I agree with their individual policies, but seeing it as a whole really shows which direction we should be heading in. I know they won't get the win, but they best represent my hopes and values for the future
The more people that vote for them the closer they get to 5%, needed to get their deposit back on that seat. This will save them thousands as they are the biggest losers of deposit, yet they keep trying, so go ahead & support them & show an appetite for them is out there. If all the people who supported Greens actually voted for them they would probably lose a lot less deposits.
Fantastic summary . You had to read it all so we didn’t have to. That must have taken you hours and hours of work. Thanks. Proportional representation is my number one priority.
The problem with new Nuclear isn't the danger, but the fact it makes no economic sense in 2024. 10-20 years ago, it _would_ have made sense. But now, the setup and running costs for nuclear are way higher than for renewables and have a much longer lead time to build than renewables. For example, the conservative opposition party in Australia are trying to push a plan for nuclear power to reduce power prices, but the earliest they're expecting that new generation to come online is _13 years_ after starting. Think about how much solar and wind and battery storage could be brought online in the mean time with that same amount of money, actually helping to reduce power prices _before_ the policy is old enough to be a teenager! If private companies want to try build and run a nuclear power plant, sure go ahead, but it should not get government funding because more power can be brought online sooner for less cost with renewables. It's a distraction by those who are upset that they've lost support for coal. Yes, nuclear technology is cool and is relatively safe, but I can't just throw a nuclear power station on the roof of an existing building or dot it between fields otherwise used for farmland!
Yeah I’m pro nuclear but this is the point I always bring up. We can’t build nuclear power plants fast enough to replace fossil fuels. Build our renewable energy sector and then let’s talk about nuclear not the other way around
Absolutely. THE LCOE (levelized cost of energy = true comparison) has renewables with battery storage at 40% the cost of nuclear. Also, if you were to cover the area of a nuclear plant in solar cells you'd get an output of about 20% that of nuclear anyway (in the UK).
How about introducing LFTR reactors onto existing sites? They use the more more abundant Thorium, rather than Uranium, but, importantly, they can also use the waste product from Uranium reactors as fuel, as such we could make this nuclear technology part of the decommissioning of nuclear sites, AND this would be over the period that we sort out power storage infrastructure and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. The LFTRs could then be decommissioned more safely once we had sufficient redundancy in the generation and storage elements of the grid of the future, whenever that might be.
@@Alan_Duval If there's existing nuclear sites (and hence not "new nuclear" as specified at the top of my post), then it's typically cheaper and easier to make modifications like that. But I'm not as familiar with the cost and delivery models for those sorts of modifications since I'm in a country without existing nuclear infrastructure. And for the record, I do think it's ridiculous that my country didn't invest in nuclear 20-30 years ago, especially as Australia has a lot of uranium deposits. However, especially in the last 10-15 years, the economics has flipped such that renewables are now the better deal than starting nuclear from scratch, just because of those start up costs. But if those start up costs have already been paid, my understanding is it's not actually that bad to maintain existing reactors, so making such modifications to existing sites to get more energy out of them I can see being a viable option!
The Liberal Democrats often come up with the best policies, but the two party system appears to ensure they always come in a poor third place. They entered coalition with the Tories a dozen or so year ago to get some Liberal centrist policies through parliament, & restrict a Conservative heavy Government. The price for this was having to surrender to the Tories on university tuition fees, which as a party they had promised to scrap. They were not the main party of Government so had to let the Tories get their way on this . This did not amount to lying, because at the time of the promise they had little expectation of being in Government to enact any of their policies. This is the main criticism of the party, that their policies seem attractive, but the Liberals never have had to test them because they never form the Government. The idea of the Manifesto system is good as an indication of party intensions, but it's more of a wish list for voters, as Governments of all parties can always find excuses later for failing to carry out their promises once in Government. So this current crop of manifestos must be taken with a large pinch of salt, as the failure to fulfil manifesto commitments is a normal part of modern Governments. The other point is that the most important Liberal reforms on the voting system etc cannot get the necessary support from MP's while it benefits the two main parties to stay with the first past the post system. To them this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.
the libs are and always have been centrist, and by centrist, it means right wing. its always going to be that way. uts why i like them as much as the tories albiet slightly more thsn reform. because the tories and lib dems lie equally as much. and irs hard to separate the two, because centirst snd centre right are literally identical
@@goopguy548 Sorry, but the Liberal Democrats are considered more left of centre, closer to Labour than to the Tories, who are definitely centre-right. They were founded by some disaffected Labour party members, the 'gang of four' who broke with their party & eventually joined the Liberals, renaming the resulting coalition the Liberal Democrats. They reluctantly joined with David Cameron to form a coalition Government, to get some of their policies passed, & to soften the Conservative agenda. Their undoing was their renaging on a promise about tuition fees, which was forced on them by the Tories. This meant they lost many votes at the next election.
Hi Evan, I'm the guy who recognised you in Sheffield. It was nice meeting you and your two friends and having a little chat. This video was really informative and well thought out and I am looking forward to seeing what you thought of us northerners. :)
Evan, you used "illegal immigration" so much. You know that's mostly asylum seekers that don't have a way to apply for asylum unless they physically turn up in the UK, right?
The problem with manifestos is that the rules for the Conservatives and Labour are different to those for parties who won't form a government. Whilst the LibDem manifesto will sound a lot more appealing to many progressive leaning voters, there are many parts within that Labour may agree with, but can't afford to put in their manifesto, because of the amount of voters it would turn off. Likewise Reform can make whatever promises they like to the right leaning voters, safe in the knowledge that their policies will never be tested. As things stand with our current very undemocratic system, we have a choice of Labour or Conservative to form a government. As a result, the sole purpose of either party's manifesto is to gain enough votes in the right places to form the next government. This means creating a manifesto that aligns with a sufficiently large number of voters in key constiuencies. This is obviously very limiting in terms being excessively progressive or going the other way. After 14 years of political mismanagement with the Tories moving further to the right throughout, you could say that Labour had the opportunity to be more adventurous with their manifesto, but after doing that in 2019 with a more left leaning leader and suffering a very bad defeat, you can understand them wanting to play it safe. Furthermore they have stated throughout their campaign that they want to under promise and over deliver. This is also very important for a Labour government, given that the Tory client media will highlight any possible shortcomings during their term in government. The other thing to consider is that with the Tories leaving the country in such a ruinous state, any progress is going to be slow. There is no instant turn around from 14 years of damage and neglect. Labour are planning many political reforms to help to improve people's faith in politics, but again, a lot of damage has been done and it will take a long time to change people's opinions. The first term in government will be about achieving what was set out in the manfesto and hopefully a bit more and making some reforms to restore some faith. At the end of that, if everything goes according to plan and Labour are polling well, their manfesto for the following term will be a little more ambitious.
I hope this is true, but me living in a government (danish) that has been through the whole right pivot of our version of the labour party, hoping it to be a temporary measure for it only to become conservative+, so much so that it went into coalition with our version of the conservative party and a newly created "center" party lead by the guy who was formerly state minister under the very same conservative party, ending up in a furthering of status quo. Once you see the pattern in one place you can't stop seeing it here too. It's supremely important people hold labour up to their promises, if you don't they might end up becoming conservative+ especially with how tempted they might get with focusing their efforts on stabilising the economy
quoting that funny one comment that ive read before.. "labour could have announced child labour and theyd still probably win" they have the opportunity to differ themselves more from the tories yet they act as tory lite
I found this incredibly helpful as someone who finds politics such a complicated, polarising thing. Thank you for presenting the policies in such an accessible, easily understandable way.
@@marytaylor4436Right, because calling it a new name like 'contract' makes any difference? It's still a bunch of promises, not a criticism just... why would you genuinely expect anything to change with governments and the promises they make if they slap a new name on it.
@@marytaylor4436 i guess im just pessimistic but naming it something different doesn't really inspire any confidence for me. especially since they didn't really have all that much in their contract.
I'm a bit more mixed on the Green nuclear policy. Shutting down existing plants before their intended lifespan, is a terrible idea. Once built, nuclear power is cheap and clean. But also, they are right when they say that new nuclear is a bad idea because it is very expensive, slow to produce, and a distraction from the renewable solutions that we need sooner.
With all these electric cars coming online renewables aren't going to cut it. We need the extra energy that nuclear power can provide and nuclear power is actually cheaper than other renewables. It's just a bigger upfront payment.
@@mosh.4245you’re forgetting the time and embedded carbon it takes to get a nuclear plant online, decommissioning costs and ongoing waste management and security costs. Taking those into account, developing better energy storage methods to deal with dips in wind and solar is more sustainable. As someone once said; I’d rather have wind turbines than sheep that glow in the dark.
@@juliejeavons6949 coal power plants cause higher levels of radiation leaks than nuclear plants. The fear of nuclear is all based on either misinformation or disasters that are a mixture of not possible with modern style reactors or not possible without a huge natural disaster that just don’t happen in the UK Micro reactors are suggested to speed up the implementation and already being developed, battery options currently have vast environmental issues as it stands, and more wind farms don’t stabilise the base load of the grid which a handful of nuclear plants could provide while tidal power is developed
@@huw3945 before you start mansplaining, let me point out that I’m a Fellow of the IChemE with a solid understanding of process safety. Unless you actually work in nuclear, chances are I have a much better understanding of safety, what’s involved, what can go wrong etc. And how much those necessary added layers of protection cost. Did you read the comment about it taking 13 years to get a nuclear reactor online? New nuclear reactors are not a stop gap for anything; they are a long term option if we can’t reduce demand to fit what the planet can sustain. And before you start panicking and shouting the odds, by reducing demand I mean improving efficiency and energy management whilst avoiding the Jevons paradox (no relation btw). You’ve not mentioned the external risks; terrorists getting hold of nuclear material, or what nearly happened in Ukraine with Russians bombing nuclear power plants. We’re an innovative species, we can invent better, safer forms of energy.
@@huw3945 Batteries as most people think of them do have some pretty bad environmental issues if attempted at grid scale. Lithium Ion is particularly poorly suited as a grid scale battery. But there are storage technologies that are better suited to grid scale, such as molten salt, flywheels, and pumped hydro. Nuclear's biggest problems are cost and time for the inital build. Small modular reactors are only expected to be slightly better on those fronts, but we can't say for sure because they've never been used to support a mains grid. You say that a handful of nuclear plants could provide power in the interim while we wait for tidal to become a viable technology, and that makes sense because it may well take the full lifespan of a nuclear plant before tidal becomes viable. But less facetiously, what do you propose as the interim technology to use between now and when any new nuclear plants might come online at least 10-15 years from now?
I’m surprised a reduction in VAT is not on the agenda, I’d happily take an increase in Income Tax/ reduction in VAT that even out in revenue for the government. VAT is a flat rate tax that means someone on minimum wage pays the same rate as a billionaire on a lot of goods. A drop in VAT has stimulated the economy in the past. It might also help local businesses to compete with offshored Amazon stores.
yeah but it looks good on paper, and that's all rhe lib dems care about, especially when they lie about 99% of there policy and are actually just tories
3:30 Important point to make about Labour’s train nationalisation plan, they’re nationalising the rail infrastructure, not the rolling stock which will still be provided by private companies. Which feels like a half measure. The infrastructure will be better invested in, but the private companies will still have a “for profit” motive to provide trains, and right now the trains provided are pretty terrible compared to other European countries. Why can’t it be full nationalisation? Bugs the heck out of me!
I think Map Men had a good video in rails in the UK which actually explains what happened in the past when there was full nationalization. Long story short: nice idea, still no actual functional plans for execution.
@@askalemuralia Seen a lot of people who’ve railed against railway nationalisation and use the 70s and previous nationalisation as an example. Maybe a public/private mix is good, and will be better than I’m thinking, but the for profit motive needs to be taken out, and it needs to all go into investment into better rolling stock, workers pay, modernised ticketing services, not into CEO bonuses and toward shareholders, agree largely with Mick Lynch of the RMT.
Because the tories basically left the country bankrupt & what you want costs money, so it cannot be done in one fell swoop. They can regulate the companies, get in a watch dog & let those companies fail the standards, go out of business & renationalise them on the cheap. That does not work for the rolling stock companies. They would need to be bought out & those shares are pricey. So it's simply not an option right now. Funnily enough, those rolling stocks will age & their worth will decrease. Then Labour can form their own company, analog to the plans for GB energy, to set up their own company to buy new rolling stock to lease to the railway company. By the time that happens you can bring all of them together...
The only thing you could fairly (I think) legally enforce is that either executive powers used to try and do it if possible, or if not that a bill is raised in their parliament to accomplish that, if they get any MPs, and given a chance to progress - i.e. given time in the Commons and the Lords. Maybe you could require the party to vote positively for one they created (still allow discussion and edits I would say). Other way might be to have each manifesto point be linked to a bill they wrote up that is perhaps pre analysed by a lawyer and maybe also costed as things are at the time. Unless they have a large majority you can never promise it will happen, and even then things can come up and get in the way. Criminal/civil cases for a party not doing them seems wrong, we just have to learn from that for next time or put more pressure on them - lobby, activism, show how it could work by examples from smaller areas or other countries etc, or working out details and risks. They're a measure of intent and parties build trust over time/not by sticking to them or not (and maybe if we know the candidates beforehand individually, just a shame that human nature makes lots of ways to abuse things and people to forget stuff, and capitalism/profit-driven media screws the process up too).
The only problem with that is if manifestos were legal documents they would become empty. No party would put anything but the absolute safest policies in there. You need to remember that the only way a party can fully implement their policies IF they hold a majority and frankly a government that truly represents the views of the people will rarely be a majority government because FTP promotes tactical voting (i.e., voting for a different party than the one you want in order to avoid electing another party).
Problem is with cashless. Everything digital it can be controlled by government also with cyber attacks happening more frequently you can't trust banks to keep your money safe.
As someone who lives in the north. We are glad they've dropped HS2. We dont want the countryside cutting up just so people can get from leeds to london 20 minutes faster by bypassing and reducing services to other cities. We would rather be able to get between leeds and manchester faster and without all the cancellations and that can be achieved by improving the current infrastructure.
Yes. I can get to London in just over 2 hours from Preston on the WCML cos that train then only stops at Wigan and Warrington. It can take over an hour to cover the 50ish miles to Manchester if you’re on the stopping train to Victoria (which is sometimes the only option when the faster trains are packed like sardines).
Theoretically we should read and care about the contents of manifestos... but a lot of stuff in there is never intended to happen, it's just included to placate some weird little faction in the party membership. e.g. Theresa May's manifesto included re-legalisation of fox hunting. The Lib dems said they were going to push for proportional representation in 2010 - and in coalition they got the tories to agree to a referendum on the subject... but then they did nothing to explain why they thought it'd be an improvement. It was probably overall harmful cos it promoted the idea that referenda are a good way of making decisions before the idea of having a brexit referendum started getting any traction.
Choosing your favourite manifesto can be a bad way to pick the party you'll vote for - especially in this first past the post system. Unfortunately, it's often more useful to vote tactically against the party you disagree with the most rather than vote for the party you want. Governments rarely stick to their manifestos, which makes me feel like reading them before voting is a waste of my time. You barely get a good idea of what the party will be like. For example, in 2010 people thought the Lib Dems were very progressive from their manifesto but were surprised when they propped up a Tory government and austerity. Manifestos are designed to sound good and get votes.
And now Labour is saying that instead of the Welsh consequentials being 4billion its actually 350million and we aren't getting it anyway as there is no money.....
Oh, the unoffical plan after hs2 was to upgrade the heart of wales line to join it. There were promises of new trains, upgraded line. Instead, we are getting our services slashed in December. Citing not enough people use the line, when its so unreliable its essentially unusable. There's only one bus that goes through my town and you have to transfer to get to anywhere decent. Literally no choice but cars
@@TheDolphace I hadn't heard that the UK government were going to pay for an upgrade of the Heart of Wales line - I would suggest that it was never a serious suggestion on their part. Given that Wales has 11% of the rail network but gets 1% of the funding for rail improvements (ignoring HS2) we have been grossly underfunded for decades.
@@docksider as I said, unoffical. It can never be taken seriously because hs2 will never reach crewe. But there was a lot of support. Tfw separately promised improvements and new trains, but that disappeared when hs2 did. Now its just cuts.
Your attitude of treating dejected voters who are considering voting reform as stupid racists is exactly why they are going to do well in the polls. Just because you don’t agree with reforms politics does not make them just “haha reform is dumb and racist haha”. I am disappointed as I honestly expected a tad of nuance from you.
It's the same with Brexit deniers. You can't claim that 17.5 million people are racist xenophobes who are stupid, misread a bus, placed their X in the wrong box, or whatever. Some of them may be, but not ALL of them.
@@evan I understand that, they’re not my flavour of politics either, however I don’t think attacking their voter base is fair. People who end up voting for parties like reform are usually made up of people who have been neglected by the political system. I think painting them all with one brush is unhelpful. In the same way that even if you personally dislike Donald Trump’s politics, calling 50 percent of the US electorate idiots is not true either.
Why no point for the £2 price cap? Thats one of the few great things they've done, it genuinely helps hundreds of thousands of people, and will be costing a fortune with what bus companies would actually be charging right now.
Hey Evan! I think many people are missing the point about skilled workers. By any means stop illegal migrants yes! But why do you want to put a cap on skilled migrants and milk them to the bottom? I myself a skilled worker came to the UK to do my PhD and working as a scientist for past 5 years. I want to bring my wife and son now to the UK. Google how much it costs to bring a skilled worker dependent now. NHS alone is way high and considering how bad the services are, the cost is not at all justified. In total I need to spend a bit above 14 grand to bring them in and considering the cost of living, it will take years to just save that back. So what will happen? I will probably go to countries like Dubai and settle there. This is the mind set of most skilled workers now. Of course we have talented people in the UK but nowhere enough to fill the skilled worker space. UK has been a hub for high quality education and research. If this continues, this will become no more.
because hes uneducated, clearly, he doesn't know what the age pyramid in the UK is like, or the fact that in the next decade or two the majority of our skilled population will be retired, and then all our economy will be sucked into pensions. without bringing in skilled workers this country will collapse economically and then every other way. it's disappointing to see, but then again he also whole heartedly supported a Thatcher policy because he doesn't know the past about it. im sure he can learn but yeah definitely harmful views
23:55 Running *existing* nuclear power plants is fairly green. But building *new* ones or decommissioning old ones are both really polluting. Not to mention expensive. I'm a green voter in my own country, I'm very much in favour of keeping existing nuclear plants around the world running, replacing their energy output in the short term will only make the green transition harder. But building *new* ones is very much a distraction as they said in their manifesto. Furthermore, the base load produced by nuclear power plants discourages production of green energy as nuclear plants is so expensive that they need guaranteed power purchases from governments or power companies in order to be viable, meaning that if there's a surplus of power that's cheap then green power can't replace nuclear even if it's cheaper because the power companies etc are legally required to buy that nuclear power...
@@hetty5531 Thanks. Its a bit counter intuitive, but keeping a nuclear power plant that's already running running is actually more environmentally friendly then wind power. A huge part of the pollution cost has already been made, and the decommissioning is still some way off and doesn't really get affected much by further use, so when comparing the pollution of maintenance of the windmill constantly exposed to wear and tear and difficult replacement of components vs the nuclear power plant, despite its fuel requiring pollution to extract actually ends up being cleaner for the duration. Solar panels of course beats both. And if you include commissioning and decommissioning of the nuclear power plant... Yikes... Still, if you got one, run it while it remains safe. The longer it can be kept in use before decommissioning the better. Of course eventually it's not safe enough. And it *has* to be decommissioned... And dealing with the nuclear waste is always going to be a nightmare...
The irony of an American complaining about the size of political donations in the UK. Have you seen the amount of money that goes into politics in the US?
Fun fact! We have more rooms than citizens! Meaning if we took empty houses and converted them into split homes (one bedroom room per person), we’d have an excess of over 1 million rooms. We don’t need to build more, we need to limit landlords.
The Libdems pledged back in 2010 to not raise the university top-up fees. After they joined the Tories in the coalition government, half of their MPs voted along with the Tories to raise it. Now, even though they really didn't have the votes to stop the Tories, to see them give in this way smacks of utter betrayal. As good as the manifesto you rated this time round is, the question of their trustworthiness continues to linger in my mind. To date, the current leadership has not come out to apologize for this stab in the back by their predecessors.
Firstly, the then leader Nick Clegg apologised and there's some wonderful remixes. Secondly, they exchanged it for the AV referendum which could've changed our entire system for the better if people weren't so stupid (they didn't go back on it lightly). Thirdly, a Labour PM invaded Iraq but at some point you have to move on from the past and look at the current options... Same goes for Lib Dems on tuition.
except they are still centrist scum, who will side with the tories instead EVERY SINGLE TIME it's in there political policy, centrists are right, there is no debate, that's a fact. you gotta stop falling for something so obvious@@andytc4840
I would be interested in seeing what the parties were planning to do in terms of social care and on what they plan to do for disabled people and accessibility. Both of these are massively overlooked and need to be highlighted more in the media
Surprised you didn't bring up Labours plan to set up a publicly owned energy company that focuses on clean energy, everything I've read about it looks to be a really good idea and I'm looking forward to it
@@empressdoinalotand even then they're only going to have 25% share ownership because they're expecting 3-to-1 investment from the private sector. And they cut the level of investment from 28b down to 4.7b! Labour have been really slimy this campaign.
@@NoJusticeMTG thank you for giving me more information, because all I remember from your live stream is what I wrote above. And what makes it even worse is that the SNP exposed this plan and Sir Keith had to admit to that. So thank you again.
I agree with most of the takes in the video but to me its quite glaring that the problem is not illegal migration needing to be 'fixed'. Illegal migration is simply a symptom of a broken 'legal' migration system.
I voted for the Lib Dems in my first election in 2010. A big thing and one of their main manifesto points was the scrapping of tuition fees. They ended up forming the coalition with the Tories and so were directly involved in Austerity. And then instead of reducing tuition fees, tripled them! So I'd be very hesitant to trust anything in the Lib Dem manifesto.
Yeah, I think that was the LibDem's biggest misstep. I, too, was hit by the tripling of fees. If the LibDem's had told us which Tory policies they'd successfully stopped, then we might more readily forgive them for having to sacrifice their fees stance. That said, I do agree with Evan's assessment, and I do think that, given the chance, they would work towards these promises, especially if in coalition with Labour, whom they have a lot more in common with.
Do you understand that it was a Conservative majority coalition and Liberal Democrats had to make many concessions on their policies to get others through? Too many people assumed that if you have some of the political cake you get to eat it all.
@vx9330 yes I'm fully aware it was tory led. Doesn't mean any less that the lib dems joined into it, and gave up on some of their key manifesto pledged within no time at all. The tuition fee pledges got a lot of student votes, and i know a lot of people who voted on that as a key measure who now, when combined with thr coalition, have deep distrust of the lib dems
@Alan_Duval a couple of the interviews and debates have brought this up (bbc & itv) and Ed Davey has basically said it was above their head, and did give examples of where they pushed back and won (although I can't remember them off the top of my head). People keep bringing this up as a reason for not wanting them in power, but surely they'd be better than Rishi or Keit?, LD's have never really had a chance to put it right - what have the tories and labour done to make people trust them? 😂
Hey Evan, will say as someone who waited a similar length of time for an ADHD assessment, look into the "Right to Choose". Basically, ask your GP to refer you to a private assessment under the right to choose and you can get a much shorter wait time with no higher fees than a normal prescription if you medicate it (around £9.90 per month rn)
i’m glad i watched this video before i head out and vote in a couple of hours, i’ve been on the fence about who to vote for the whole election - thank you evan, this was great! 💖
It's refreshing to hear about politics from someone who wasn't born here but lives here, No childhood bias but also not just jabbering on about another country's politics that they have no comprehension on. A genuine opinion. Keep up the good work
@@letdownbaloonyeah as someone who is educating myself on each party for the first election i can vote for, it always feels like no-one is actually reading what their own party wants to do, instead treating it more like football teams or something, including all the stressy drama, I've been thinking similar things and like your idea
Can we grow up a little bit when it comes to immigration. You are not the goodies in a children’s cartoon fighting off the Wehrmacht and there are plenty of reasons beyond “errrr they’re brown” or “xenophobia” to not want your local culture to change or to import all of the worlds ethnic tensions into your street, especially at this point. This immaturity around the conversation is a large part of the reason the far right are gaining ground, because when we refuse to address legitimate concerns in order to masturbate the self righteous egos of the upper middle class and/or naive students, we are only handing them credibility. Immigration directly affects housing, crime, culture and infrastructure. Gaslighting ourselves and others into thinking immigration is the one policy with no downsides is only destroying our own credibility. I say that as an extremely reluctant lefty.
what culture? tea and crumpets? you think having more immigrants is going to mean we all drive around in tuk tuks and wear indian clothes? it's a stupid point because it's god damn idiotic and based off the whole replacement theory bullshit the nazis spun decades ago. its harping off of fake fear that makes sense in your head but makes none as soon as you try and make an argument for it on paper. and being anti immigrant is incredibly foolish, immigration is heavily regulated, criminals arent supposed to be able to enter, no-one would have issues with stopping that. or bringing in deportation of criminals that arent citizens because they already are a thing. but crime isnt caused by someone being bored and deciding to join a gang. it's caused by poverty, and being that food houses and such arent affordable, we have an aging population and without immigration our economy will collapse in a decade or twon
Whilst I have no issue with someone wanting less immigration, and there is a clear argument to make, the generalisations made about immigrants and the casual racism spouted on the right, is to be charitable, a bit of a turn off. I think less immigration could seem more appealing, even to immigrants, if politicians did not demonise a whole group of people and try to blame every single problem the UK faces on them, and then have the confidence to turn around and ask those very same people to see reason in their argument, well why should they? You’ve just spent the last decade telling them they’re taking up space, stealing money, attacking women, stealing babies, leeching off the system, stealing jobs… I could go on. The right have villainised immigrants and can’t ask the very same people they’ve spent the last decade insulting, to vote for them.
@@sammy-er7on The issue is I don’t know what you mean by generalisations and casual racism. Given the lefts’ disengenous relationship with language at this point there is a fairly good chance you could just mean someone referring to objective facts about disproportionate perpetration rates of certain crimes and/or pointing out incompatible cultural differences. This of course is without mentioning the extremely irresponsible demonisation of half the country by left leaning politicians and media outlets we have been seeing for the last decade (liberal use of the word fascist/white supremacist and accusations about working for the Russians), as well as the explicit bigotry they justify by projecting onto the majority of the population (Diane Abbott, Hamza yousef). This rhetoric is not just on political or racial grounds but with other bizarre calls like a curfew on men because one guy committed a crime. Frankly your perspective seems lazy and extremely outdated and as much as I am trying to be diplomatic you really do need to catch up because this arrogant assumption of moral superiority amongst left wing people is ignorant, outdated and hypocritical. Immediately accusing the opposition of something you (or your “side”) are just as guilty of isn’t helpful and will inevitably devolve into a shouting match, especially if the aim of bringing it up is to dismiss the concerns of a significant proportion of the electorate. Crazy/stupid people will exist everywhere on both sides of any issue, ignorantly attributing them to being exclusive to one side and then constantly bringing them up to dismiss and derail is not insightful. I’m more interested in a healthier conversation about immigration.
@@dealbreakercno it isn't any it's way less convenient, less safe, less reliable and more stressful. Plus with that fuel duty, ved and insurance tax your putting way more into the public purse.
@@alistairmonro Considering VED, insurance, MOT, servicing, and depreciation... I've already spent about £2k in a year before I've driven anywhere. Each mile then costs 25p in petrol + about 5p more in oil and rubber. Based on how far your journey is, you could use this to work out if the bus really is expensive!
@@PhillipParr not sure what you are planning on driving. You can certainly drive much cheaper than that. For some reliability, safety, comfort and convenience are more important. I suppose it's very case specific taking into consideration age, location etc.
26:38 To cope with illegal immigration, tackle the REASONS for it. Why would anybody risk their lives to get to another country for a chance at a better life? It must mean things back home are really very bad.
Indeed. One could refrain from voting for parties that have a track record of destabilising the regions that these migrants are coming from. That would mean not voting Labour or Conservatives.
The greens stance on nuclear power was enough to make me not vote for them regardless of any other policies, they could have been perfect for me other than that and i wouldnt have touched them with a 10ft pole
Greens and HS2: Carla Denyer has said the bit they objected to has already been built and they'd invest in infrastructure in the north of England. It's not about trees, Greens usually block developments because they would fail to solve problems or fall short of standards - this applies to housing as well, check out some of Carla's recent interviews. You're probably not old enough to remember Sellafield / Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. While I accept nuclear power is better than fossil fuels, I'm still not convinced of its safety. The real problem for the Greens is we need to get rid of the Tories, which means tactical voting.
Even if you take all of those accidents and take the most wildly outlandish estimates of harm caused by them, nuclear has actually still caused less harm per energy even than renewables have. And two of those were already-known mismanagement of already-known flawed designs.
I get nuclear power as it stands is pretty safe, especially compared to fossil fuels. But I think one of the most concerning things about nuclear power is what the greens pointed out, climate change (which lets be honest, it's going to happen a lot, we are now just aiming to lessen impacts at this point) can potentially make nuclear power plants more at risk of damage or melt down. When they go wrong then they can really go wrong. A really bad one in the future getting into the water table could affect millions directly, if not billions, for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yes major melt downs have often been due to mismanagement ect, but that is the world we live in, human error happens, mismanagement will happen again. Why take that long term risk, invest in renewables & aim to make them safer. Nobody died horrifically & literally melted from the inside or had deformed children because of a renewable energy breakdown.
Excellent video. I had already decided to vote Lib Dem even though Labour always get in, in my area. I'm old so I remember what the railway was like before the privatisation, it was easier to book a train back then, maybe because there were fewer of them, but compared with today it was a little more organised.
One thing to note about the vehicle tax for the greens. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than gasoline ones because of the battery; that increase in weight is around 30% on average. So not only are they planning to force replace the fuel used by the vehicles in an unreasonable amount of time, but they would also increase the tax burden on anyone who owns a car. Given the issues that EVs have in the secondary / resale market, I'm highly suspicious of the overall approach.
As appealing as it sounds Reform's idea of removing taxation from healthcare workers for 3 years would not work. First, any temporary increase in take home pay creates industrial tension when staff feel the slap in the face of it ending, potentially more strikes. Second, a temporary rise without being in headline salary gives no help to the many healthcare workers trying to get a mortgage or other loan or credit deal based on salary. Third, public healthcare systems are very complex - the NHS is now an umbrella brand label of approved organisations, not a single organisation, and staff may be employed by a variety of different organisations within that - If a nurse works in a hospital that treats both NHS and private patients, how could you work out what part of their salary should not be taxed? If a radiographer works only at a few different NHS sites depending on where they're needed, do they not get the tax break because thier employment is contracted out to a private agency? Do privately employed healthcare workers working only with private patients get the tax break - the head physio at Manchester United? What about the highly skilled non-clinical staff, the ward clerks, the medical secretaries who provide such specialist infrastructure? Finally, I don't see how a 3-year window would in any way attract potential new staff into training for the professions, and could even harm it when potential healthcare students realise that pay will be going down substantially when they qualify.
Difficult. If it is given to full-time NHS only, I hope the others don't take these people's win and turn it into their loss. When 1 mans win is another man's frenzy But lets hope they know a way to make it for everyone ❤ from Northeast England ❤️
I think NHS workers not having to pay as much tax is great as they can then earn more.. it's not a slap in the face, unless i'm not understanding something. I would happily take that. Only NHS workers should get this though, not private!
10:32 The Greens are actually promising to provide 150,000 *council* homes not social homes (idk why it says social homes there) which is a pretty big difference. Council homes can be truly guaranteed to be affordable as they are built and provided by the government rather than “affordable” ones which their affordability is pretty much set by if the private sector want to make them or not. Tackling the housing crisis isn’t just about building more homes but building the best and most actually affordable homes and those types of homes are council homes. 26:42 The term ‘illegal migration’ is a false one which the current government basically made up. They class anyone not coming through official government means as “illegal” this means any migrants that are in desperate need of coming here but don’t live in a country with a government issued safe route such as Ukraine are considered illegal and have to travel by methods like small boats. The solution to this is to provide all migrants with the safe and legal routes which will end the demand for small boat crossings as they can get here officially. This is something both the Lib Dem’s and Greens are promising but Labour are sadly not. 34:48 Also Lib Dem’s aren’t the only party wanting to introduce proportional representation lol. Both Greens and Reform want to change the voting system to proportional representation so the Lib Dem’s aren’t special in that regard.
Nuclear is not as low carbon as you think. There's loads of supporting infrastructure, mining & transporting fuel, plant construction & managing waste for millennia.
Nuclear power is a way of producing plutonium to sell to the USA to maintain their nuclear weapons programme. Electricity production is a side benefit of nuclear power that gives it a veneer of justification, and carbon doesn't really figure in the considerations either.
Somehow I forgot to mention that this will be my first general election that I’m legally allowed to vote in! That’s why I put so much time into reading the manifestos and why you might have known more about a lot of the parties than I did going in.
Well done! If you don't vote we can't have change! 😎👍
Would have been great to mention tactical voting but I understand why you didn't mention it
I generally find the lib dem policies are the most appealing... but last few elections, I've just gone tactical voting because getting the Conservatives out has felt more important than voting for who I'd actually want to.
Would love some form of PR voting system that would make that less of a necessary judgement :(
congrats!
unfortunately you will find out that the manifestos don't matter just like the rest of us have 😂
They'll just change their mind and make policy up as they go along
Worth mentioning on the NHS part, lib Dems have many plans to help with mental health such as walk in clinics. Home has been libdem for as long as I've been alive, hope they finally get a chance as the bug guys at the table
I think your assessment of the Conservative plan on migration was unfair. The Tories have executed a brilliant long-term startegy to cut migration: running the economy into the ground, to make Britain less attractive to migrants over time.
Zing
They’ve definitely made it way less appealing for queer people to immigrate to the UK.
I think people are missing the point of skilled workers. By any means stop illegal migrants yes! But why do you want to put a cap on skilled migrants and milk them to the bottom? I myself a skilled worker came to the UK to do my PhD and working as a scientist for past 5 years. I want to bring my wife and son now to the UK. Google how much it costs to bring a skilled worker dependent now. NHS alone is way high and considering how bad the services are, the cost is not at all justified. In total I need to spend a bit above 14 grand to bring them in and considering the cost of living, it will take years to just save that back. So what will happen? I will probably go to countries like Dubai and settle there. This is the mind set of most skilled workers now. Of course we have talented people in the UK but nowhere enough to fill the skilled worker space. UK has been a hub for high quality education and research. If this continues, this will become no more.
🤣🤣🤣
Had me going there for a second you sly dog 😂
There is one major manifesto missing here. Highlights include:
All Water bosses to take a dip in British rivers, to see how they like it.
National service to be introduced for all former prime ministers.
Wifi on trains that works.
Trains that work.
European countries to be invited to join the UK, creating a new ‘union of Europe’, if you will.
I pledge to build at least one affordable house'
The reintroduction of Ceefax.
Minsters’ pay to be tied to that of nurses for the next 100 years.
MPs to live in the area they wish to serve for 4 years before election, to improve local representation.
Count Binface to represent the UK at Eurovision.
and most importantly, croissants to be price-capped at £1.10, and 99 flakes to cost 99p.
That was Count Binface's manifesto for the mayoral election, or am I mistaken.
@@barriehull7076 I think that he's running for MP in Sunak's constituency.
😂
😂
If he wins the constituency, I’ll be £998 better off 😂
Tories are like the guy who tells you he has 10 grand in savings, but he's overdrawn, and his credit cards are maxed out.
Tories are like Dutch Van der Linde.
IVE GOT A PLAN
Is Tahiti an off shore account 😂
Haha!!! ❤
@@evan They're like Baldrick.
I'VE GOT A CUNNING PLAN!
Damn... I didn't know I'm a Tory
As a child, the impression I got from politics was "everyone wants to vote for the Lib Dems, but no one will vote for them because they're scared of wasting their votes".
SAMMMMMEEEE!!!! This is the first time I'm actually going to vote lib dems.
Yep! They actually have a chance now because the tories inadvertently caused the collapse of the 2 party system it’s now the one party system and a free for all to be the 2nd majority and opposition in parliament. Kinda exciting tbh
if everyone thinks this way nothing will change, vote for what you want and when people see the true numbers maybe that makes more people vote for their chosen party which would make a difference!
So all the adults in your life were weak and cowardly?
Nah screw them. They deserve their place at the moment. They were an active part of giving up 14 years of austerity. I actually think Lib Dem and Labour are trying to switch places right now outflanking each other on the left and right respectively.
The best line comes from you Evan….. “who will we all put in office to destroy the country next”!! That’s what it feels like to me…..
We've had a succession of post war governments that continue to make things worse for the 'common' man.
The pushing of "all MPs are the same" is a false narrative pushed by those wishing to undermine democracy. All MPs are not the same. The underlying issue with modern day politics is that, in the UK, the political system is not fit for purpose leading currently to a corrupt and skewed Governmental system. Many MPs want what most people want, a much better system not open to abuse or corruption.
Feels like that episode of South Park - ‘Let’s get out and vote, let’s make our voices heard! We’ve been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd! It’s democracy in action, put your freedom to the test! Big fat turd or stupid douche? Which do you like best?’ Seems pretty dead on I think.
@@cyberpsycho9250 I need to find this clip now! It’s sounds pretty accurate to me! 😂
Haha me too!!! 😂
Lib Dem marketing probably seems bad because they are super local campaigners. They don’t have as many resources as Labour or Conservatives so instead choose to put the majority of time and resources into constituencies they can realistically win rather than a big national campaign. They are renowned for doing really well in local council elections and slowly building a profile in those areas.
Yeah, (as they keep telling us) the Lib Dems are basically neck and neck with the Tories in my area, so we get at least one leaflet a week from them.
In terms of the other parties:
- Tories: a lot early on (including before the election was announced), but they've tailed off more recently (not that it makes a difference as theirs just go straight in the recycling anyway).
- Labour: one or two, mostly talking about the local candidate, but they don't poll well locally and they don't want the Tory candidate to get in because they lured too many people away from the Lib Dems.
- Reform: literally one (which also went straight in the recycling).
- Greens: ironically, three identical leaflets that all came through the door at the same time (not very environmentally friendly...).
Yes I received a personally addressed letter from Libdem talking about their position and concerns and i was like. Oh at least they have a personal touch even though I barely read it. I might reread it now!
@@hannahk1306 Only 1 a week? I've been getting daily leaflets over the last week and a half/two weeks.
he's really good at marketing to his local councils like i am only 17 so not aloud to vote yet but i receved a personally adresed letter as to why they would be good, as a way to encorage me for the next election in a couple years
@@hannahk1306they definitely are comparbale to the tories, just slightly more left. the conservatives are centre right, liddems are far worse as they are centrists, who famounsly do fuck all
While I may not agree with all of your takes, I appreciate all the work you must have put into this, so thank you! Reading all those manifestos must have been painful!
The world would be a pretty boring place if everybody agreed with everybody else.
The problem is you can't even trust what these parties put in their manifesto.
They can't trust themselves 😅
You definitely can't trust Reform, especially with the seeming lack of any way to fund many their plans; but they know they won't be realistically able to demand all their plans, and voters probably won't realise or care; maybe Reform can just influence policy a little depending how close they get to Tories on vote share - or to the next party down (note that UKIP were a major reason why we had the EU referendum in the first place, even without owning a single seat, just cos Tories got nervous about losing seats and influence to them, UKIP owned many of the previous BNP voters and were the most realistic way to vote further right than Tory for those inclined).
@@jgbreezer Reform knows they aren't going to win this election. Farage said it himself.
@@jgbreezer I disagree. The Green Party has the largest amount of false promises here shortly behind Lib Dems and Conservatives. Reform I could see being the most likely to come through with their policies for better or worse. But honestly with the state the country is in right now, any change would likely be a welcomed one.
so true, especially when so many of them want to quit early and retire for their huge monthly retirement payment. Feels like whoever wins, the same people are actually running it all and only care about money for themselves. We already know we can't trust Labour or conservative from past experience, so hoping someone else at least wins.
I was also most impressed by the Lib Dem manifesto, somewhat ironically given their promise of reforming the voting system to be more representative, I can’t justify voting for them, because there is no way they will ever come close to winning in my area. The whole system is so antiquated.
I wonder how many other people in your constituency are thinking exactly the same?
PolyMatter mentioned once in a Singapore video that the gap in approval vs actual votes of their government could be because some citizens view their vote as a way to send a message or an "opinion poll". My mindset is the same in hopes that the percentage points are at least viewed in the "hmn, they didn't do too bad in the polling actually" threshold rather than "it's so low it's never gonna happen next time".
@@quintuscrinis8032 probably quite a few, but it’s going to be so marginal I just don’t want to risk having another Tory MP for 5 years
I will protest vote. It will make it harder to form a full majority to govern.
So you want to vote Lib-dems so they can reform the voting system but can't as the voting system hasn't been reformed yet? Ouch.
To be fair to the Green Party I wouldn't call the destruction of vast ancient woodlands a few "trees" or "a leaf" especially in a nature depleted country like ours facing a climate emergency. There has been a lot of dispute in the past about the best way forward. Years ago when HS2 was a big thing in the media one rail engineer wrote an article saying in so many words that upgrading the infrastructure that was already there would've been less costly. The reasons given for its cancellation in 2023 were ballooning costs and accusations of mismanagement. £65bn has been spent; makes you wonder what the private contractors involved did with the money given that they went over-budget and over-time.
Had something to do with tory peers buying up the land to sell on the government for a huge markup iirc
Holiday homes abroad I would guess
That 100 day thing will just mean unsuitable.. people with no empathy or compassion will be drawn for the money money money….
Likely ended up in tax havens like Montenegro.
Upgrading the existing infrastructure as HS2 to achieve the same goal should absolutely be a consideration.
"I myself am an immigrant"
Oh, Evan. You are not the kind of immigrant that people who are yelling about immigrants get mad about...
When he said that I immediately thought "oh, sweet summer child..."
he is unless he has an essential job I don't know about hes just a youtuber whos only really providing the government with tax they can waste otherwise he is just using services and taking up housing brits could have
I think you might be misinterpreting the comment
But NHS workers ARE working outside their hours. Literally need more staff.
@@archiebald4717yeah sure just get rid of all management and admin for one of the largest employers in the UK. How do you think that work is going to be done?
@@archiebald4717yes there are a lot of middle management jobs that were “created” that they could do without, same as the council jobs.
I think this part is a bit more nuanced that it first appears. I have a friend who is trained as a GP, and she does something like 4 hours work for the NHS per week (consultations/referrals on the 111 service) . The rest of her week, she does private work and cosmetic procedures.
So I believe the policy is to incentivise NHS staff who split their time between public and private work to re-orientate their hours to do more work directly for the NHS.
How will this be done when only the rich can afford university, and therefore the training necessary?
Right now, we're exploiting countries which actually give their poorer citizens a chance, by taking all their doctors away from them.
@@krissyg7026 Well what middle management jobs would you cut?
I remember when they privatised the catering in my District Health Authority. The quality went down, the costs went up. Two of the three senior managers' jobs changed, they were now responsible for overseeing the new contractors. One senior manager was made redundant. Most of the staff were offered their old jobs, at a lower wage and no pension. Naturally some the better of the kitchen staff declined and got better jobs elsewhere.
The fact that the leader's name is Ed Davey, not Ed Davies, but I know several people that have made that exact mistake speaks volumes about how bad the Lib Dems are at marketing 😂
Oh my GOD
They even have A leader?
If they do somehow claim the 2nd spot in these election then everyone will know their names soon enough. Fingers crossed.
The Lib Dems are only focusing on about 80 seats where they finished second last time. If you’re not in one of those seats you probably won’t hear much from them.
@@GingerinMelbourneI know the paddle boarding stunt was done on Windermere cos Tim Farron is almost certain to get re-elected. I was up last weekend and it was a nice change not to see Tory banners everywhere.
So an important distinction that I like about the green parties manifesto is that they are actually proposing a wealth tax. I just looked to remind myself and it is a 1% tax on those whose net worth is £10Mil and up. This would be massive because rich people can avoid most taxes by simply letting their assets appretiate while not actually using any more money then an average person. Personally this alone made their tax policy worth 2 points using your system XD
The UK has some of the highest rates on millionaires leaving the country right now so as much as I like this idea I don't know how well it will work as they will probably try to claim citizenship elsewhere and find those tax loopholes. I feel like realistically though it would have to be something like 0.5% or lower as 1% is an absurd amount of money. let's say someone has a net worth of 5 million that means they would lose an extra £50,000 a year on top of other taxes and if they maintain that value it is repeated which means in just 20 years that is over a million pounds which is a fifth of their worth. (yes I know net worth would change year on year but you get my point)
Essentially what I'm saying is that paying 1% on top of all normal taxes is an incredible amount of money to just go straight to the government and is fairly unrealistic to ever get through parliament unless it is heavily altered or used a lower tax. I feel like the better solution which yes is the boring one is to tax the higher band more.
@@magicanimalboy1 you are missing the fact that the tax being proposed here is a WEALTH tax, not an income tax; and is therefore applied to the assets they own such as houses, infrastructure etc. People affected by the tax could move to another country of course but their assets are much harder to move and would still be taxed no matter where they relocate to
@@robertwinslade3104 I used the wrong terminology by talking about net worth instead of wealth as they are similar but not the same however if you read through it with that in mind my point still stands.
For the greens against HS2 because of trees. The trees that have already been cut down or would be cut down for completing HS2 would be ancient woodland. These woodlands are becoming increasingly rare and once they're gone they are gone for good. We can not replace them with new plantations, they are irreplaceable! I work as an ecologist and whenever HS2 is mentioned around my colleagues we all grimace and hate the whole thing because of it destroying a bunch of the very few ancient woodlands we have left in this country. Just so everyone understands the reasoning of the greens for not wanting HS2
Thanks for this. I did think Evan's comment was a little glib, so it's good to have some (admittedly post hoc) justification for it.
Just because HS2 has been abandoned it does not mean that a new rail line will not be built. Only that it will not be high speed.
every woodland is ancient in various contexts. there are over 50,000 and hs2 impacts 25ish. even if it affected 1000, the long term economic and social benefit of hs2 trumps the environmental effects of those specific trees, the rarity of which the majority of the general public does not care about. The greens want to do nothing ever again and it's jarring.
@@Jmaster009 I'm not sure that the ignorance of the general public is the right metric for deciding the value of those trees and/or woodlands, indeed, that's the point of representative democracy, to have those that do know make the appropriate case to the decision-makers. The problem is that the woodlands don't have representatives, much less representatives for each key ecological niche contained therein.
This, they aren't just leaves.
The cap on political donations is a huge one. Personally, I'd completely ban donations from corporations and unions. I'd also put a limit per person of something like £100, and ban anyone not eligible to vote in the UK election from funding it. If you want to spend a lot of money on your campaign, then you should have to convince enough ordinary people to support you, not 5 to 10 billionaires.
The proportional representation is a great policy. Unfortunately, that was in the Lib Dems' manifesto in 2010 and they sold everyone out for a shot at power, basically agreeing to a ridiculous Alternative Vote system that even they didn't want, in exchange for enabling the worst of the Tories' austerity.
There are already laws about not allowing foreign money to fund election campaigns; that was what the fuss was about wrt Brexit and Russian money. We allow our media to be owned and run by foreign interests; people who don’t pay tax in the U.K. should not have such a huge influence on our elections.
As a union member, I decide myself that some of my membership fee goes to my unions political fund to help Labour. It's from the will of the membership so I would not ban that element.
I would also add, raise MPs salaries, but make it illegal for them to have any secondary employment or paid work. And ban gifts over £100 in value. They should only be there to serve their constituents.
@@andrewdavies3091 rather than increasing their salaries I’d give them the median national wage to incentivise them to increase wages for the majority.
@@TheGregcellent Absolutely fine, just make sure it's opt in, not opt out. I'm not sure if it is or not.
When you mentioned the Greens and Nuclear, I was just like "Yes!" in my head, seriously it feels like the Greens are stuck in the 80s/90s when it comes to their policies on Nuclear, things have changed since then but they haven't. I mean if they really expect everyone in the UK to get an electric car and our grid to be able to cope without having to burn extra coal at peak times, then we will occasionally need Nuclear (as well as solar and wind).
Though I agree that nuclear can be a part of a greener future. The old troupe of "peak hours" is a pretty poor reason to consider it. First, nuclear is quite bad at sudden changes and is not able to increase or decrease even close to fast. And more importantly, there are other and better ways of dealing with peak hour highs. If you want an easy ex. look up a vid from Simon Clack called "The green future of coal mining". The title is a bit silly, but make more sense when you have seen it.
They also need to be a whole lot less NIMBY about wind and solar farms
Except they don't expect everyone to get an Electric Car. They expect to improve public transport services and for people to have reduced or no need for a personal car (or support the rise of car share practices/hiring for when one is actually needed).
The other commentor makes the correct point of Nuclear being useless for matching peak demand... you have to run a Nuclear plant at full output 100% (almost) of the time for it to be economical.
Tidal Power is the greener alternative that we should be exploring in terms of producing a stable constant power input to the system where we can then balance on top with other technologies.
I'm a green in public office and many of us are working to change the stance on nuclear! Party policy is democratically agreed and I suspect nuclear will change in the next conference or two
@@josephmcmahon7470 nuclear is to cover base load not peak hours. Renewables are a mixture of unreliable, and fluctuating. The best solution which is possible with existing tech is nuclear replacing base load currently covered by gas, with wind and solar making up the main production, and using hydroelectric storage to cover leak hours or the delay as nuclear ramps up or down.
Tidal would be great and can be what replaces nuclear as base load but the tech and scale doesn’t exist
My favourite manifesto promises this election was "we will shorten NHS waiting lists by making the font smaller" you got to love the looney party!
My politics a-level teacher’s catchphrase was
“Manifestos are not ✨legally binding✨”
She also made us do jazz hands whenever she mentioned that.
Seriously though, governments do not have to actually commit to what they promise in manifestos. Granted, they have the consequence of losing trust amongst the electorate (+ possibly votes) but they have no legal consequences.
But sometimes they cannot do things if they haven't put them in their manifesto, see the whole tory/Rwanda deal & how that went through the House of Lords.
Anyway, refUK is a Ltd & they call their manifesto a contract. Can they be sued now?
It's more that if it's not in your manifesto it creates problems. They're not legally binding but you have to justify not doing things or doing something different.
I think Reform is by far the most likely to actually come through with what they have in their manifesto and cutting taxes is 100% what people should be wanting right now regardless of how you feel about migration. My biggest gripe is their backward way of looking at the Drug problem but we'll see. In my opinion, the legalization of Marijuana could be hugely beneficial to the UK economy and drop the crime rates significantly despite how funny it sounds. Wish there was ever a party that was genuinely centered/progressive but also used common sense.
I think it should be a binding contract...especially when some manifestos say "contract with the people" or something like that. Punishment can be the same for perjury and fraud.
If in coalition, which is odd in Britain because of their colonial era voting system, they can rank the manifesto pledges in the order they want and this way, if 2 parties in coalition, party A gets top half of what they pledged, Party B gets top half of what they pledged
More HE professionals should enforce the use of jazz hands in learning environments.
I think the Liberal Democrat’s manifesto offers some solid policies and I’m hoping they’ll form the opposition if only to imagine 5 years of the Tories not having a stranglehold on the media discourse. Saying all of that I would probably never vote for the Lib Dem’s given their track record in the coalition. Ed Davey himself was in the cabinet signing off on Cameron and Osborne’s spending cuts. Austerity, that the Lib Dem’s supported, is a huge reason why our economy is in such a massive decline with stagnant wages, failing public services and lower standards of living. The cost of living crisis is only currently reported in the media because it affects middle class people like those with mortgages, but before that austerity was already pushing people into poverty with the UN finding the government of coalition responsible for ‘grave and systematic violations of the human rights of persons with disabilities’. The Lib Dem’s complicity and involvement in the worst government of this century has to be remembered.
I think the lib dems have learnt their lesson, they lost more than half seats after that coalition and in the 14 years since I think the lib dems should have another go.
Nick Clegg's decision to jump into bed with Cameron and Osborne, rather than Gordon Brown (whom he had a lot more in common with - I assume the Tories offered them more token front-bench posts) started the horrific shit-show of the last 14 years. It was a monumentally stupid decision that almost destroyed the Lib-Dems . I hope they've learned the fundamental lesson of politics - Never trust a Tory.
Nick Clegg got a hospital pass that election. All choices were bad, to into government with the Tories and accept some had policies, prop up Gordon Brown who was massively unpopular, or chicken out of power completely. Going in with the Tories was the least worst option.
Yet in the coalition the lib Dems actually got more manifesto pledges implemented than the Tories! The problem was they also gave up some of their landmark policies (tuition fees anyone?) and the Tories spin machine was so much better so they claimed credit for all of the good ideas the lib Dems pushed for whilst letting them get blamed for all of the shite...
And how can you call that the worst govt of this century when Liz Truss happened!
British election manifestos are not worth the paper they are printed on as they are not contracts and not enforceable in law. In 1981, Lord Denning said "A manifesto issued by a political party - in order to get votes - is not to be taken as gospel… It may contain - and often does contain - promises or proposals that are quite unworkable.". Even this notwithstanding, there is no legal principle of “legitimate expectation” and in any case, the Courts have ruled themselves out of jurisdiction saying it is a matter for Parliament. Hence, why manifestos are a total waste of time.
manifestos may not be legally enforced, but its a bit much to say that they're completely worthless. completely ignoring your manifesto pledges gives ammunition to the other parties during the next election cycle, since pointing out that you failed to meet or even attempt your pledges is a pretty good line, so parties that want to stay in power have motivation to at least attempt to follow their manifesto.
That's right, I'm still waiting for uni fees to go back to £3K a year 😂
But Nigel tells us Reform don't have a manifesto, they are offering a "Contract"; it's even printed on the front cover of their document. Does this mean we could hold Reform to this contract and what would the penalties be for failure?🤔
@@vagabondlibrarianWould be true, except they all do it. Do it would be counter productive to point that out
Being pro cashless society is insane. Wanting cash is not “living in the past” it is a security of individual freedom and privacy.
Nah. If privacy is really what you’re after, there’s always Monero.
@@evan Monero is still less private than Cash. The only true privacy is found offline.
@kidflersh7807 you know every banknote has a serial number and almost every shop has a camera above the till and every cash machine certainly does.
How is cash anonymous in reality
My main issue with cashlessnes is the fragility of digital payment methods. It's scure when you're sitting at a computer inputting details, but real purchasing power is "out-and-about" purchasing power, which means using a card or more likely your phone.
Recently I had the last leg of a trip to Turkey go a little sour because my phone had a fit and refused to cooperate. I had to pull out many excessive stops and beg favours to get back home on time, and I couldn't make the gift purchases I wanted for my family. I was told confidently that obtaining Lira cash-in-hand would be a waste of time, and for 70+% of the trip that was true, but it would have come in clutc during that minor crisis at the end. Think about how bad it COULD have been if my phone went schizo earlier.
(hell: I couldn't even buy some snacks on the plane back home because flights are generally allergic to cash-in-hand from outdated COVID-era rules. I had £20 on me on an easyjet flight and it was worthless!)
Money, be it cash or digital stands and falls with the Goverment issuing it. If you want individual freedom, maybe you'd be better of with something solid, like gold. So go ahead; start digging that bank vault in your backyard. Wait do you rent or do you own the ground you live on?
It’s a grammatical rule in the UK and the USA that if a word is plural then the short of that word should be plural as well. Mathematics - Maths. So Americans are pronouncing it badly.
Mathematics isn’t plural though haha
@@evan Sure it is. 1+1=2 is a math. 2×3=6 is a math. All the maths together are maths.
Rent to buy for social housing is actually a terrible policy without increasing social housing stock. The Right to Buy schemes have depleted social housing stock over the years because houses get taken off the market before they get replaced. Its one of the biggest reasons local authorities don't have enough social housing anymore. IMO, it's the sorta thing that sounds nice and warm, but when you think about it, it causes more problems than it solves.
The Right to Buy scheme privatized precious social housing stock during a time when there was no intention to build more social housing. It was devised and implemented under Thatcher's watch. At first sight, it seems like it's significantly better to allow tenants to buy their home rather than big corporations or investors, however, some of these tenants eventually became landlords and rented their homes at significant cost to their new tenants, recreating the problem social housing is meant to solve. Furthermore, these former tenants could sell their homes to big corporations and speculative investors once certain conditions were met. As you can imagine, housing costs grew significantly.
Point being, the goal of social housing is to house people in a manner that reaffirms their dignity, integrity, and humanity (i.e. the housing should be high quality and desirable, and should never be exploitative nor should it ever be considered charity).
The Right to Buy scheme undercuts the foundation of social housing and serves to privatize a public good at great cost to the key demographic social housing is suppose to serve: the public.
So build more housing. Genuinely what’s the issue? It sounds like people who needed a home we’re able to buy a home and thus build wealth off of their new found property. That’s good! That’s how you build generational wealth. If you want poor people to stay poor forever in social housing then sure never let them buy, but personally I would like to take people out of poverty- not trap them. Right to buy isn’t the issue here, it’s the lack of new social housing being built as stated by you. So, I’m confused why you’re blaming right to buy when you already explained the real issue.
@@ronstevenson4792personal property =/= privatization. Privatization only refers to when public entities are bought by corporations, not someone buying their own house. If housing stock is genuinely such an issue then mandate that if any person moves from their right to buy house then they can only sell it back to the government. And mandate all new developments should have a minimum of 30% social housing and tax buffs for those that build even more. Right to buy can implemented and done well, it’s just Thatcher got to it first and made it bad on purpose because she was a witch
@@soymilkman the issue with right to buy / rent to buy is mostly in the cities: if local authorities build on land they own, and then are required to sell that on to their tenants, the local authority will gradually lose the land they can provide/build social housing on in areas that people need to live to be able to access their workplaces/services, and the likelihood of local authorities buying more land inside cities from private ownership to build on would be prohibitively expensive.
In smaller towns and more rural areas where there is more possibilities /land is cheaper to purchase, it's less of an issue (although Local Authorities having the available funds to purchase more land from private ownership on top of the cost of building is still a concern).
and that's why it should apply to all housing, not just social housing
One point of note about making road tax proportional to vehicle weight, however, is that road wear isn't proportional to vehicle weight... it's propositional to vehicle weight _to the fourth power_ !! So while this policy is a step in the right direction, it's _still_ overtaxing small vehicles/subsidising large vehicles to a ludicrous degree.
The trade off then is EVs lose. Which means more tailpipe emissions
Light vehicles are a choice cars Large vehicles are functional buses and lorries its a policy that should be reversed tax the small cars like the luxury items they are
@@graveperil2169punctuation exists. Please use it. It will make your ramble a lot more readable.
For me an important part of the manifesto was how the individual party’s intend to fund their policies. From that the Lib Dem’s, Greens and Reform proposals appear unrealistic at best, totally ridiculous at worst. Without a credible means to fund a programme all you have is a wish list.
They never did say linearly proportional tbf
Access to NHS dentistry is currently so bad that my brother, who left home 5 years ago and currently lives 200 miles away, has the same dentist as myself because he wasn't able to find one with any spaces for NHS patients within a reasonable distance (1 hour drive) of either his previous address or his current one, so he books 2 days off work and stays overnight at our parents house. The dental surgery, on a university campus, is a 10-15 minute walk from my house and has 1 NHS dentist alongside 4 private ones and 1 for exclusive use by university students and staff. If you were to ring up today (2/7) you'd have a 6 week wait to see the NHS dentist but under 48 hours to see a private one.
Yeah my brother hasn't had one since he left Bristol 5 years ago!
@@YujiUedaFan and I found out (at my dentist appointment) that they've got a waiting list of some 4,500 people to get onto the books of the NHS dentist, but the private dentists are undersubscribed.
The NHS surcharge is now over £1k/year. This year alone it was increased by over 60%. Also, as a visa holder myself I can assure everyone I cannot claim benefits. This is the weirdest thing to come from reform because it's just a blatant lie.
A blatant lie from reform isn’t weird tho is it
@@evan touché!
Hi Evan, as someone involved with the project that eventually was called 'HS2' I need to point out that it was NEVER about improving passenger transport to the North, but to free up rail pathways to allow for high speed freight traffic. It was only ever a 'High Speed' line as it made no (minimal) difference to the construction costs.
If was never about passenger transport then why the hell did everyone who has ever talked about it besides you outright said, implied and intermated that it was about passenger transport 😂😂😂😂😂
Because its called "High Speed 2". The real point is that the slow freight trains can use more of the current slow lines when the passenger services move away from them. Doesn't take a genius to be honest.
So having a high speed PASSENGER line to the north was never about improving PASSENGER transportation in the north?
How does that work? Were they going to run slower trains on HS2 than the existing lines?
That’s not true.
Also it is a GOOD thing to separate freight and passenger transit. Speeds up passenger trains, lessens delays, increases the frequency you can run those trains. And if it improves freight rail, that’s good too if it means less semi trucks on the roads
Yeah as someone from the north who was suppose to benefit from HS2 (the line is no longer coming to the north west), I was always against it. Rather than “improving the north” it would’ve just funnelled more people into London further destroying our communities. We need more rail connections east to west, actually connect the entirety of the uk rather than having yet another line to London. I think people often forget how centralised the uk is around London
A 2am video is perfect for my insomnia
i feel like you're calling me out here
I'll top ya and call it 3am 😮💨
@@4dzxk332 💀
5am here...
@@4dzxk332Top me? go ahead
Evan ULEZ is a nightmare to those who can't afford a newer vehicle. It's not like my 2014 van is puking dinosaur guts everywhere, it's still got a DPF. My car still has a cat. These aren't your old age carburetted sheds with no emissions equipment; ULEZ is just a cash grab.
Then I guess you should take public transport as intended
@@evan do you think they'll mind if I take 7 bouncy castles, 7 blowers, 14 mats, soft play and all the other bits I use my van for on there?... Or can we finally stop criticising vehicles like they're the worst thing ever when they are a huge portion of why modern society even functions
Sorry but rejecting cashless sociaty is common sense especially with the increase in hacking incidents also had many cases of a card reader stop working in shops both working in them and as a customer not saying burn the payment system and go back to only cash just you are always better with both same with paper work and pretty much everything else haveing everything digital is like using a loaded shotgun for a walking stick sooner or later it will go off and blow your foot off
24:50 as much as we both dislike Reform, your reading comprehension has failed you. The heading is "abolish IHT for all estates under £2m". That means estates above two million pounds in value would still pay inheritance tax. The billionaires and anyone with more than two millions would still pay IHT.
Good catch. Brain is manifesto soup. Will trim it out
We need Count Binface and £1.10 capped price croissants.
AND at the building of at least ONE social house.
@@andyonions7864 It's so sad that we've got to a point where these are ACTUALLY good policies
And forcing water company owners to take a dip in the Thames
@@KaishaLouise it's true. The Monster Raving Looney party advocated pets' passports and it came to pass.
The ‘rent to buy’ scheme is sounding very similar to the ‘right to buy’ scheme which while brilliant on paper has really decreased the social housing available. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but won’t this do the same?
Not the same as the developments are privately owned and not social housing.
@@eattherich9215it is the same, it's the exact same thing Thatcher sold to the public that fucked over housing. because the lib dems are tories, it's as simple as that, there is no such thing as a centrist
The issue about Reform and Taxation is that a smaller percentage of a bigger amount can be more money - and if you reduce tax burden, that automatically stimulates the economy, thus increasing the total taxation take. We are over taxed to a point that it is causing economic slow down. I think Reform's instinct is right - some sizable tax cuts would light the afterburners on the economy. Total GDP goes up - total government take goes up.
except reform wouldn't tax cut the poor the most, it would go to the wealthy and the corporations, if you can't see that im worried for you, those assholes lie as much as trump
I would love to vote for Lib Dem but where I live, there's a very high chance of reform getting in so I've got no choice but to vote for Labour.
Lib dems have the best manifesto- I wish Labour would allow another vote on EU membership, but we need to do anything possible to block Reform UK, so many minorities (genger, LGBTQ, race, age) would lose all their equality rights, that and allowing full freedom of speech would cause unlimited hate with zero consequences
same.
I sympathise. I live in a super-safe tory seat and I know my vote will mean jack sh*t.
@@infidelcastro5129 the percentages in the popular vote will influence how much representation each party gets on political television for the next 5 years. If you're in a safe conservative seat, you're somewhat freed from the responsibilities of tactical voting, and can vote for whoever best aligns with your views.
Also you might want to check the yougov MPR projections, some seats which are normally safe conservative are predicted to change hands. The swing away from the conservatives at this election is huge.
@@Richiecandyloverthe irony is that they don’t want free speech. What the want to stop is anyone calling them out on their xenophobia and bigotry.
I will say, as a disabled trans person, lib dems also get points from me for their policies around queer rights, rights for carers of disbaled people (especially in relation to carers allowance payments) and disability benefits as a whole,
Aye, but in the same respect, they lose points for going along with the very worst bits of austerity, which killed many thousands of our disabled citizens.
I'm not really mad at them for tripling uni fees, I'm mad at them for making promises on fees just to get into power, and then using that power to vote for so many policies that killed or made life significantly worse for so many of the most vulnerable.
All the parties need to increase benefits for the disabled i agree
except they are lying. because they are centrists aka right leaning assholes who will happily side with the tories over labour. they dont need solid policies they trick people into voting for them then go directly against there police, vote green or Labour not those Tory assholes
UK is an island and doesn't need nuclear with geothermal hydrothermal heliothermal PLUS wind etc. Tidal power development is particularly large in the UK as well. 5m down it's 12C, there's your air conditioning. Turns Out you were sitting on it the whole time, right now, no nukes under you either
Not one mention on the massive deficit this country has. The UK now has more debt than the country makes per a year. There is no money! Of course Evan is from the land of the free which is also drowning in a sea of debt. Debt is a very popular lifestyle choice in the US.
I reviewed manifestos also and came to a similar conclusion to you. Lib Dems seem to have the most pragmatic approach to what is largely achievable in reality without getting too outlandish.
The Lib Dem's manifesto isn't pragmatic and completely ignores the issues that have caused the current problems. They are also being very sly with their wording so they are promising less that you'd think.
Guaranteeing GPs appointments sounds great but it can only be achieved one of three ways 1. negotiating with the GMC (doctors union) which is easily the most powerful union in the county, to get them to agree to provide the appointments, the GMC always win so this is unlikely. 2. Do what usually happens when negotiating with GPs pay them a bunch more money for a service they should be providing anyway and don't include any performance mesures to ensure they actually do the work. and they always win. 3. Like the tories pay GPs to employ more Physician Assistants who aren't actually fully qualified doctors let alone GPs.
They have talked a lot about care but they have only pledged 'personal care' and nothing else. Evey time they are very specific 'personal care' this is only the quick visit in home care and the cheapest care if you are paying out of pocket and does not include any of the more complicated in home care, restbite care or nursing homes. So not really tackling the issue while they talk about it like it's an important issue for them.
Wanting to sell off more social housing would be a disaster. Even Thatcher didn’t allow them to sell for x amount of years, when they sold they went to landlords and now we’ve no cheap housing. Idiotic move and I hope no one is stupid to hand them power again. Labours increase in social housing appears the only sane proposal
@@just2lovable Agreed, social housing sales to the extent they are allowed MUST be matched by new construction replacements. Sadly this has rarely been the case.
Personally, I'd ring fence any profits from sales for a social housing fund for future generations. This must become a problem that used to exist in the old days.
@@sangfroidian5451 I remember at the time thinking it was a genius idea as the people around me couldn’t afford a home otherwise. Then the horror realising there were no new social housing plans and seeing the waiting times for a home sky rocket! If they did right to buy again then you’re right, they’d have to drastically increase stock first and continue to do so.
except they lie, then copy the tories. they are centrists, which literally just means rhey are centre right. as you should know. lib dem will lie about anything the same way they lie about there political ideology, its not centrist, it's right and they wont achieve any of it
Excellent summary! I voted (postally & tactically) for the LDs mainly to get the Tories out but am actually impressed with their current manifesto - at times left of Labour and more progressive than the Greens. I get that they can promise more because they won't be the heavy lifters on implementation, but hoping they become the official opposition.
the LDs lie as much as the tories, only minorly less than reform, a vote for them is a vote for the tories, and not because it's a vote down the drain, bur because lib dems would 99 times out of a hundred, side with the Tories over labour. they are a right leaning party pretending to be centrist and lying in there policies
Let's keep reading the empty promises in the manifesto - truer words my friend.
I would like to point out that HS2 was planned to go through world heritage sites. For instance, it was going to run through stone henge which for some of us is the equivalent to running a Trainline through an ancient cathedral.
HS2 was a great idea, but rather than route it round existing infrastructure to prevent further environmental and cultural damage they decided to run it through a heritage site.
You should come to the south west, you'll see how important these sites are to the locals here.
We have rituals we do on summer solstice, and these rituals have been done for longer than we have had written records
Aye, I love the South West
But... more important than HS2
Jam then cream... me says... so is it war with the Northeast or alliance? 😊
❤ from Northeast England ❤️
I'm voting Greens. I agree with their individual policies, but seeing it as a whole really shows which direction we should be heading in. I know they won't get the win, but they best represent my hopes and values for the future
The more people that vote for them the closer they get to 5%, needed to get their deposit back on that seat. This will save them thousands as they are the biggest losers of deposit, yet they keep trying, so go ahead & support them & show an appetite for them is out there. If all the people who supported Greens actually voted for them they would probably lose a lot less deposits.
Fantastic summary .
You had to read it all so we didn’t have to. That must have taken you hours and hours of work. Thanks.
Proportional representation is my number one priority.
With proportional representation it leads to lots of coalitions tho and a lot of the time parties find it hard to agree on stuff
The problem with new Nuclear isn't the danger, but the fact it makes no economic sense in 2024. 10-20 years ago, it _would_ have made sense. But now, the setup and running costs for nuclear are way higher than for renewables and have a much longer lead time to build than renewables. For example, the conservative opposition party in Australia are trying to push a plan for nuclear power to reduce power prices, but the earliest they're expecting that new generation to come online is _13 years_ after starting. Think about how much solar and wind and battery storage could be brought online in the mean time with that same amount of money, actually helping to reduce power prices _before_ the policy is old enough to be a teenager!
If private companies want to try build and run a nuclear power plant, sure go ahead, but it should not get government funding because more power can be brought online sooner for less cost with renewables. It's a distraction by those who are upset that they've lost support for coal. Yes, nuclear technology is cool and is relatively safe, but I can't just throw a nuclear power station on the roof of an existing building or dot it between fields otherwise used for farmland!
Mass-produced small, modular reactors.
Yeah I’m pro nuclear but this is the point I always bring up. We can’t build nuclear power plants fast enough to replace fossil fuels. Build our renewable energy sector and then let’s talk about nuclear not the other way around
Absolutely. THE LCOE (levelized cost of energy = true comparison) has renewables with battery storage at 40% the cost of nuclear. Also, if you were to cover the area of a nuclear plant in solar cells you'd get an output of about 20% that of nuclear anyway (in the UK).
How about introducing LFTR reactors onto existing sites? They use the more more abundant Thorium, rather than Uranium, but, importantly, they can also use the waste product from Uranium reactors as fuel, as such we could make this nuclear technology part of the decommissioning of nuclear sites, AND this would be over the period that we sort out power storage infrastructure and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. The LFTRs could then be decommissioned more safely once we had sufficient redundancy in the generation and storage elements of the grid of the future, whenever that might be.
@@Alan_Duval If there's existing nuclear sites (and hence not "new nuclear" as specified at the top of my post), then it's typically cheaper and easier to make modifications like that. But I'm not as familiar with the cost and delivery models for those sorts of modifications since I'm in a country without existing nuclear infrastructure.
And for the record, I do think it's ridiculous that my country didn't invest in nuclear 20-30 years ago, especially as Australia has a lot of uranium deposits. However, especially in the last 10-15 years, the economics has flipped such that renewables are now the better deal than starting nuclear from scratch, just because of those start up costs. But if those start up costs have already been paid, my understanding is it's not actually that bad to maintain existing reactors, so making such modifications to existing sites to get more energy out of them I can see being a viable option!
The Liberal Democrats often come up with the best policies, but the two party system appears to ensure they always come in a poor third place. They entered coalition with the Tories a dozen or so year ago to get some Liberal centrist policies through parliament, & restrict a Conservative heavy Government. The price for this was having to surrender to the Tories on university tuition fees, which as a party they had promised to scrap. They were not the main party of Government so had to let the Tories get their way on this . This did not amount to lying, because at the time of the promise they had little expectation of being in Government to enact any of their policies. This is the main criticism of the party, that their policies seem attractive, but the Liberals never have had to test them because they never form the Government. The idea of the Manifesto system is good as an indication of party intensions, but it's more of a wish list for voters, as Governments of all parties can always find excuses later for failing to carry out their promises once in Government. So this current crop of manifestos must be taken with a large pinch of salt, as the failure to fulfil manifesto commitments is a normal part of modern Governments. The other point is that the most important Liberal reforms on the voting system etc cannot get the necessary support from MP's while it benefits the two main parties to stay with the first past the post system. To them this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.
the libs are and always have been centrist, and by centrist, it means right wing. its always going to be that way. uts why i like them as much as the tories albiet slightly more thsn reform. because the tories and lib dems lie equally as much. and irs hard to separate the two, because centirst snd centre right are literally identical
@@goopguy548 Sorry, but the Liberal Democrats are considered more left of centre, closer to Labour than to the Tories, who are definitely centre-right. They were founded by some disaffected Labour party members, the 'gang of four' who broke with their party & eventually joined the Liberals, renaming the resulting coalition the Liberal Democrats. They reluctantly joined with David Cameron to form a coalition Government, to get some of their policies passed, & to soften the Conservative agenda. Their undoing was their renaging on a promise about tuition fees, which was forced on them by the Tories.
This meant they lost many votes at the next election.
Hi Evan, I'm the guy who recognised you in Sheffield. It was nice meeting you and your two friends and having a little chat. This video was really informative and well thought out and I am looking forward to seeing what you thought of us northerners. :)
Evan, you used "illegal immigration" so much. You know that's mostly asylum seekers that don't have a way to apply for asylum unless they physically turn up in the UK, right?
The problem with manifestos is that the rules for the Conservatives and Labour are different to those for parties who won't form a government. Whilst the LibDem manifesto will sound a lot more appealing to many progressive leaning voters, there are many parts within that Labour may agree with, but can't afford to put in their manifesto, because of the amount of voters it would turn off. Likewise Reform can make whatever promises they like to the right leaning voters, safe in the knowledge that their policies will never be tested.
As things stand with our current very undemocratic system, we have a choice of Labour or Conservative to form a government. As a result, the sole purpose of either party's manifesto is to gain enough votes in the right places to form the next government. This means creating a manifesto that aligns with a sufficiently large number of voters in key constiuencies. This is obviously very limiting in terms being excessively progressive or going the other way.
After 14 years of political mismanagement with the Tories moving further to the right throughout, you could say that Labour had the opportunity to be more adventurous with their manifesto, but after doing that in 2019 with a more left leaning leader and suffering a very bad defeat, you can understand them wanting to play it safe. Furthermore they have stated throughout their campaign that they want to under promise and over deliver. This is also very important for a Labour government, given that the Tory client media will highlight any possible shortcomings during their term in government.
The other thing to consider is that with the Tories leaving the country in such a ruinous state, any progress is going to be slow. There is no instant turn around from 14 years of damage and neglect. Labour are planning many political reforms to help to improve people's faith in politics, but again, a lot of damage has been done and it will take a long time to change people's opinions. The first term in government will be about achieving what was set out in the manfesto and hopefully a bit more and making some reforms to restore some faith. At the end of that, if everything goes according to plan and Labour are polling well, their manfesto for the following term will be a little more ambitious.
Yep nailed it.
I hope this is true, but me living in a government (danish) that has been through the whole right pivot of our version of the labour party, hoping it to be a temporary measure for it only to become conservative+, so much so that it went into coalition with our version of the conservative party and a newly created "center" party lead by the guy who was formerly state minister under the very same conservative party, ending up in a furthering of status quo. Once you see the pattern in one place you can't stop seeing it here too. It's supremely important people hold labour up to their promises, if you don't they might end up becoming conservative+ especially with how tempted they might get with focusing their efforts on stabilising the economy
sigh....we need proportional ranked-choice voting...... 🗳 ☑️.
quoting that funny one comment that ive read before.. "labour could have announced child labour and theyd still probably win"
they have the opportunity to differ themselves more from the tories yet they act as tory lite
I found this incredibly helpful as someone who finds politics such a complicated, polarising thing. Thank you for presenting the policies in such an accessible, easily understandable way.
Reform did have a policy to scrap the Home Office and replcace it with an immigration office instead. Nigel did call the Home Office useless.
Ah good. Not in the manifesto but good to know.
@@evan Not a manifesto, a contract
@@marytaylor4436Right, because calling it a new name like 'contract' makes any difference? It's still a bunch of promises, not a criticism just... why would you genuinely expect anything to change with governments and the promises they make if they slap a new name on it.
@@halloweenjean Called contract specifically because manifesto has a rep of being full of promises that are never realised by main parties.
@@marytaylor4436 i guess im just pessimistic but naming it something different doesn't really inspire any confidence for me. especially since they didn't really have all that much in their contract.
I admit, I laughed at the phrase "Daddy Starmer". Lol.
I'm a bit more mixed on the Green nuclear policy.
Shutting down existing plants before their intended lifespan, is a terrible idea. Once built, nuclear power is cheap and clean.
But also, they are right when they say that new nuclear is a bad idea because it is very expensive, slow to produce, and a distraction from the renewable solutions that we need sooner.
With all these electric cars coming online renewables aren't going to cut it. We need the extra energy that nuclear power can provide and nuclear power is actually cheaper than other renewables. It's just a bigger upfront payment.
@@mosh.4245you’re forgetting the time and embedded carbon it takes to get a nuclear plant online, decommissioning costs and ongoing waste management and security costs. Taking those into account, developing better energy storage methods to deal with dips in wind and solar is more sustainable. As someone once said; I’d rather have wind turbines than sheep that glow in the dark.
@@juliejeavons6949 coal power plants cause higher levels of radiation leaks than nuclear plants. The fear of nuclear is all based on either misinformation or disasters that are a mixture of not possible with modern style reactors or not possible without a huge natural disaster that just don’t happen in the UK
Micro reactors are suggested to speed up the implementation and already being developed, battery options currently have vast environmental issues as it stands, and more wind farms don’t stabilise the base load of the grid which a handful of nuclear plants could provide while tidal power is developed
@@huw3945 before you start mansplaining, let me point out that I’m a Fellow of the IChemE with a solid understanding of process safety. Unless you actually work in nuclear, chances are I have a much better understanding of safety, what’s involved, what can go wrong etc. And how much those necessary added layers of protection cost.
Did you read the comment about it taking 13 years to get a nuclear reactor online? New nuclear reactors are not a stop gap for anything; they are a long term option if we can’t reduce demand to fit what the planet can sustain. And before you start panicking and shouting the odds, by reducing demand I mean improving efficiency and energy management whilst avoiding the Jevons paradox (no relation btw).
You’ve not mentioned the external risks; terrorists getting hold of nuclear material, or what nearly happened in Ukraine with Russians bombing nuclear power plants. We’re an innovative species, we can invent better, safer forms of energy.
@@huw3945
Batteries as most people think of them do have some pretty bad environmental issues if attempted at grid scale. Lithium Ion is particularly poorly suited as a grid scale battery.
But there are storage technologies that are better suited to grid scale, such as molten salt, flywheels, and pumped hydro.
Nuclear's biggest problems are cost and time for the inital build. Small modular reactors are only expected to be slightly better on those fronts, but we can't say for sure because they've never been used to support a mains grid.
You say that a handful of nuclear plants could provide power in the interim while we wait for tidal to become a viable technology, and that makes sense because it may well take the full lifespan of a nuclear plant before tidal becomes viable. But less facetiously, what do you propose as the interim technology to use between now and when any new nuclear plants might come online at least 10-15 years from now?
I’m surprised a reduction in VAT is not on the agenda, I’d happily take an increase in Income Tax/ reduction in VAT that even out in revenue for the government.
VAT is a flat rate tax that means someone on minimum wage pays the same rate as a billionaire on a lot of goods. A drop in VAT has stimulated the economy in the past. It might also help local businesses to compete with offshored Amazon stores.
Someone on minimum wage actually pays more, because a billionaire will buy it through one of their companies and get VAT exemption on it.
So, the issue with letting people buy their social housing (and Thatcher started this) is when you do, you start to err run out of social housing.
yeah but it looks good on paper, and that's all rhe lib dems care about, especially when they lie about 99% of there policy and are actually just tories
3:30
Important point to make about Labour’s train nationalisation plan, they’re nationalising the rail infrastructure, not the rolling stock which will still be provided by private companies. Which feels like a half measure.
The infrastructure will be better invested in, but the private companies will still have a “for profit” motive to provide trains, and right now the trains provided are pretty terrible compared to other European countries.
Why can’t it be full nationalisation? Bugs the heck out of me!
I think Map Men had a good video in rails in the UK which actually explains what happened in the past when there was full nationalization. Long story short: nice idea, still no actual functional plans for execution.
@@askalemuralia
Seen a lot of people who’ve railed against railway nationalisation and use the 70s and previous nationalisation as an example.
Maybe a public/private mix is good, and will be better than I’m thinking, but the for profit motive needs to be taken out, and it needs to all go into investment into better rolling stock, workers pay, modernised ticketing services, not into CEO bonuses and toward shareholders, agree largely with Mick Lynch of the RMT.
Because the tories basically left the country bankrupt & what you want costs money, so it cannot be done in one fell swoop.
They can regulate the companies, get in a watch dog & let those companies fail the standards, go out of business & renationalise them on the cheap.
That does not work for the rolling stock companies. They would need to be bought out & those shares are pricey. So it's simply not an option right now.
Funnily enough, those rolling stocks will age & their worth will decrease. Then Labour can form their own company, analog to the plans for GB energy, to set up their own company to buy new rolling stock to lease to the railway company. By the time that happens you can bring all of them together...
They would really struggle to nationalise railways outright due to the cost involved.
@@davidtrotter6695
Then you do MMT and borrow to invest
MANIFESTO'S SHOULD BE A LEGAL DOC - Thus forcing the Parties to doing what they said they would do.
The only thing you could fairly (I think) legally enforce is that either executive powers used to try and do it if possible, or if not that a bill is raised in their parliament to accomplish that, if they get any MPs, and given a chance to progress - i.e. given time in the Commons and the Lords. Maybe you could require the party to vote positively for one they created (still allow discussion and edits I would say). Other way might be to have each manifesto point be linked to a bill they wrote up that is perhaps pre analysed by a lawyer and maybe also costed as things are at the time. Unless they have a large majority you can never promise it will happen, and even then things can come up and get in the way. Criminal/civil cases for a party not doing them seems wrong, we just have to learn from that for next time or put more pressure on them - lobby, activism, show how it could work by examples from smaller areas or other countries etc, or working out details and risks. They're a measure of intent and parties build trust over time/not by sticking to them or not (and maybe if we know the candidates beforehand individually, just a shame that human nature makes lots of ways to abuse things and people to forget stuff, and capitalism/profit-driven media screws the process up too).
oh like a contract with the people
@@dexterjettster8875- you lot literally fall for any old nonsense, eh?
The only problem with that is if manifestos were legal documents they would become empty. No party would put anything but the absolute safest policies in there. You need to remember that the only way a party can fully implement their policies IF they hold a majority and frankly a government that truly represents the views of the people will rarely be a majority government because FTP promotes tactical voting (i.e., voting for a different party than the one you want in order to avoid electing another party).
But they are (kind of). The House of Lords can block any legislation not in the manifesto.
Problem is with cashless. Everything digital it can be controlled by government also with cyber attacks happening more frequently you can't trust banks to keep your money safe.
Hi Andrew, I hadn't scrolled down far enough to see your comment and I've just posted a similar comment myself.
As someone who lives in the north. We are glad they've dropped HS2. We dont want the countryside cutting up just so people can get from leeds to london 20 minutes faster by bypassing and reducing services to other cities. We would rather be able to get between leeds and manchester faster and without all the cancellations and that can be achieved by improving the current infrastructure.
Yes. I can get to London in just over 2 hours from Preston on the WCML cos that train then only stops at Wigan and Warrington. It can take over an hour to cover the 50ish miles to Manchester if you’re on the stopping train to Victoria (which is sometimes the only option when the faster trains are packed like sardines).
I wonder what proportion of people will vote without even looking at any party manifesto. I know it'll be disappointingly high
Theoretically we should read and care about the contents of manifestos... but a lot of stuff in there is never intended to happen, it's just included to placate some weird little faction in the party membership. e.g. Theresa May's manifesto included re-legalisation of fox hunting.
The Lib dems said they were going to push for proportional representation in 2010 - and in coalition they got the tories to agree to a referendum on the subject... but then they did nothing to explain why they thought it'd be an improvement. It was probably overall harmful cos it promoted the idea that referenda are a good way of making decisions before the idea of having a brexit referendum started getting any traction.
I don't need to waste my time with firelighters to confirm my biases.
@@joinedupjon If the parties actually stick to what they write, maybe.
Choosing your favourite manifesto can be a bad way to pick the party you'll vote for - especially in this first past the post system. Unfortunately, it's often more useful to vote tactically against the party you disagree with the most rather than vote for the party you want.
Governments rarely stick to their manifestos, which makes me feel like reading them before voting is a waste of my time. You barely get a good idea of what the party will be like. For example, in 2010 people thought the Lib Dems were very progressive from their manifesto but were surprised when they propped up a Tory government and austerity. Manifestos are designed to sound good and get votes.
@@xwhateverx666How would you propose people go about picking who to vote for? Looking for advice.
My blood boils knowing Wales was forced to pay into HS2 despite it not actually being in Wales. Conveniently labelled an England AND Wales project.
And now Labour is saying that instead of the Welsh consequentials being 4billion its actually 350million and we aren't getting it anyway as there is no money.....
Oh, the unoffical plan after hs2 was to upgrade the heart of wales line to join it. There were promises of new trains, upgraded line.
Instead, we are getting our services slashed in December. Citing not enough people use the line, when its so unreliable its essentially unusable. There's only one bus that goes through my town and you have to transfer to get to anywhere decent.
Literally no choice but cars
@@TheDolphace I hadn't heard that the UK government were going to pay for an upgrade of the Heart of Wales line - I would suggest that it was never a serious suggestion on their part. Given that Wales has 11% of the rail network but gets 1% of the funding for rail improvements (ignoring HS2) we have been grossly underfunded for decades.
@@docksider as I said, unoffical. It can never be taken seriously because hs2 will never reach crewe. But there was a lot of support.
Tfw separately promised improvements and new trains, but that disappeared when hs2 did. Now its just cuts.
Your attitude of treating dejected voters who are considering voting reform as stupid racists is exactly why they are going to do well in the polls. Just because you don’t agree with reforms politics does not make them just “haha reform is dumb and racist haha”. I am disappointed as I honestly expected a tad of nuance from you.
It's the same with Brexit deniers. You can't claim that 17.5 million people are racist xenophobes who are stupid, misread a bus, placed their X in the wrong box, or whatever. Some of them may be, but not ALL of them.
Their policies are bad and incredibly xenophobic. Not interested in pretending they’re not
@@evan I understand that, they’re not my flavour of politics either, however I don’t think attacking their voter base is fair. People who end up voting for parties like reform are usually made up of people who have been neglected by the political system. I think painting them all with one brush is unhelpful. In the same way that even if you personally dislike Donald Trump’s politics, calling 50 percent of the US electorate idiots is not true either.
@@evanLmao
Is your opinion that mollycoddling them is likely to sway their vote?
Watching this on election day. Thank you algorithm for introducing me to this channel! Love the analysis and lol moments. ~
WAHEY! Thanks and welcome! :)
Why no point for the £2 price cap? Thats one of the few great things they've done, it genuinely helps hundreds of thousands of people, and will be costing a fortune with what bus companies would actually be charging right now.
Because I do not trust a thing in the Tory manifesto further than I can throw Boris
The £2 fare ends at the end of the year according to Stagecoach.
Read the policy.
It's for the next Parliament, do you know what that means?
@@evan
and 'next Parliament' means they are only guaranteeing it for a few months.
@@evan All manifestoes are works of fiction that JK Rowland would be proud of.
Hey Evan! I think many people are missing the point about skilled workers. By any means stop illegal migrants yes! But why do you want to put a cap on skilled migrants and milk them to the bottom? I myself a skilled worker came to the UK to do my PhD and working as a scientist for past 5 years. I want to bring my wife and son now to the UK. Google how much it costs to bring a skilled worker dependent now. NHS alone is way high and considering how bad the services are, the cost is not at all justified. In total I need to spend a bit above 14 grand to bring them in and considering the cost of living, it will take years to just save that back. So what will happen? I will probably go to countries like Dubai and settle there. This is the mind set of most skilled workers now. Of course we have talented people in the UK but nowhere enough to fill the skilled worker space. UK has been a hub for high quality education and research. If this continues, this will become no more.
because hes uneducated, clearly, he doesn't know what the age pyramid in the UK is like, or the fact that in the next decade or two the majority of our skilled population will be retired, and then all our economy will be sucked into pensions. without bringing in skilled workers this country will collapse economically and then every other way. it's disappointing to see, but then again he also whole heartedly supported a Thatcher policy because he doesn't know the past about it. im sure he can learn but yeah definitely harmful views
i also wouldn't recommend Dubai, that's a quick way to end up slave
23:55
Running *existing* nuclear power plants is fairly green.
But building *new* ones or decommissioning old ones are both really polluting.
Not to mention expensive.
I'm a green voter in my own country, I'm very much in favour of keeping existing nuclear plants around the world running, replacing their energy output in the short term will only make the green transition harder.
But building *new* ones is very much a distraction as they said in their manifesto.
Furthermore, the base load produced by nuclear power plants discourages production of green energy as nuclear plants is so expensive that they need guaranteed power purchases from governments or power companies in order to be viable, meaning that if there's a surplus of power that's cheap then green power can't replace nuclear even if it's cheaper because the power companies etc are legally required to buy that nuclear power...
this^
@@hetty5531
Thanks.
Its a bit counter intuitive, but keeping a nuclear power plant that's already running running is actually more environmentally friendly then wind power.
A huge part of the pollution cost has already been made, and the decommissioning is still some way off and doesn't really get affected much by further use, so when comparing the pollution of maintenance of the windmill constantly exposed to wear and tear and difficult replacement of components vs the nuclear power plant, despite its fuel requiring pollution to extract actually ends up being cleaner for the duration.
Solar panels of course beats both.
And if you include commissioning and decommissioning of the nuclear power plant...
Yikes...
Still, if you got one, run it while it remains safe.
The longer it can be kept in use before decommissioning the better.
Of course eventually it's not safe enough.
And it *has* to be decommissioned...
And dealing with the nuclear waste is always going to be a nightmare...
The irony of an American complaining about the size of political donations in the UK. Have you seen the amount of money that goes into politics in the US?
Whataboutism
@@evan I know, but I couldn't resist taking the piss!
Typically racist attitude at 7:20? Evan appears to make Nigel, .. appear racist, whilst actually being racist himself?
Making fun of racists makes one racist! TIL
It is so true, prices for transport is getting so bad nowadays
Fun fact! We have more rooms than citizens! Meaning if we took empty houses and converted them into split homes (one bedroom room per person), we’d have an excess of over 1 million rooms. We don’t need to build more, we need to limit landlords.
The Libdems pledged back in 2010 to not raise the university top-up fees. After they joined the Tories in the coalition government, half of their MPs voted along with the Tories to raise it. Now, even though they really didn't have the votes to stop the Tories, to see them give in this way smacks of utter betrayal.
As good as the manifesto you rated this time round is, the question of their trustworthiness continues to linger in my mind. To date, the current leadership has not come out to apologize for this stab in the back by their predecessors.
Firstly, the then leader Nick Clegg apologised and there's some wonderful remixes. Secondly, they exchanged it for the AV referendum which could've changed our entire system for the better if people weren't so stupid (they didn't go back on it lightly). Thirdly, a Labour PM invaded Iraq but at some point you have to move on from the past and look at the current options... Same goes for Lib Dems on tuition.
except they are still centrist scum, who will side with the tories instead EVERY SINGLE TIME it's in there political policy, centrists are right, there is no debate, that's a fact. you gotta stop falling for something so obvious@@andytc4840
I would be interested in seeing what the parties were planning to do in terms of social care and on what they plan to do for disabled people and accessibility. Both of these are massively overlooked and need to be highlighted more in the media
Surprised you didn't bring up Labours plan to set up a publicly owned energy company that focuses on clean energy, everything I've read about it looks to be a really good idea and I'm looking forward to it
But it isn't. It's an investment company into clean energy. They don't actually produce any energy
@@empressdoinalotand even then they're only going to have 25% share ownership because they're expecting 3-to-1 investment from the private sector. And they cut the level of investment from 28b down to 4.7b! Labour have been really slimy this campaign.
@@NoJusticeMTG thank you for giving me more information, because all I remember from your live stream is what I wrote above. And what makes it even worse is that the SNP exposed this plan and Sir Keith had to admit to that. So thank you again.
I agree with most of the takes in the video but to me its quite glaring that the problem is not illegal migration needing to be 'fixed'. Illegal migration is simply a symptom of a broken 'legal' migration system.
I voted for the Lib Dems in my first election in 2010. A big thing and one of their main manifesto points was the scrapping of tuition fees. They ended up forming the coalition with the Tories and so were directly involved in Austerity. And then instead of reducing tuition fees, tripled them! So I'd be very hesitant to trust anything in the Lib Dem manifesto.
Yeah, I think that was the LibDem's biggest misstep. I, too, was hit by the tripling of fees.
If the LibDem's had told us which Tory policies they'd successfully stopped, then we might more readily forgive them for having to sacrifice their fees stance. That said, I do agree with Evan's assessment, and I do think that, given the chance, they would work towards these promises, especially if in coalition with Labour, whom they have a lot more in common with.
Do you understand that it was a Conservative majority coalition and Liberal Democrats had to make many concessions on their policies to get others through? Too many people assumed that if you have some of the political cake you get to eat it all.
@vx9330 yes I'm fully aware it was tory led. Doesn't mean any less that the lib dems joined into it, and gave up on some of their key manifesto pledged within no time at all. The tuition fee pledges got a lot of student votes, and i know a lot of people who voted on that as a key measure who now, when combined with thr coalition, have deep distrust of the lib dems
@Alan_Duval a couple of the interviews and debates have brought this up (bbc & itv) and Ed Davey has basically said it was above their head, and did give examples of where they pushed back and won (although I can't remember them off the top of my head).
People keep bringing this up as a reason for not wanting them in power, but surely they'd be better than Rishi or Keit?, LD's have never really had a chance to put it right - what have the tories and labour done to make people trust them? 😂
@@MeganGrace130513 Yeah, exactly. That said, part of the problem is that the Lib Dems are just bad at self-promotion (I can relate).
Hey Evan, will say as someone who waited a similar length of time for an ADHD assessment, look into the "Right to Choose". Basically, ask your GP to refer you to a private assessment under the right to choose and you can get a much shorter wait time with no higher fees than a normal prescription if you medicate it (around £9.90 per month rn)
Ironically, Labour is proposing a benefit of Brexit. VAT on private school fees, apparently EU does not allow that.
Dunno where you heard that about the EU but it isn't true.
@@Zatnicatel Phil from A different bias
i’m glad i watched this video before i head out and vote in a couple of hours, i’ve been on the fence about who to vote for the whole election - thank you evan, this was great! 💖
It's refreshing to hear about politics from someone who wasn't born here but lives here,
No childhood bias but also not just jabbering on about another country's politics that they have no comprehension on.
A genuine opinion.
Keep up the good work
I didnt know what a party manifesto was until after i clicked the video
this is exactly why people need to have a questionnaire test before voting.
@@letdownbaloon I think Australia calls it something different and it's not election season here so party didn't register as political party.
@@CuriousEchidna I'm pretty sure we also call them manifestos in Australia if I'm not mistaken
@@james-om1wd Ah, thanks :)
@@letdownbaloonyeah as someone who is educating myself on each party for the first election i can vote for, it always feels like no-one is actually reading what their own party wants to do, instead treating it more like football teams or something, including all the stressy drama, I've been thinking similar things and like your idea
Can we grow up a little bit when it comes to immigration. You are not the goodies in a children’s cartoon fighting off the Wehrmacht and there are plenty of reasons beyond “errrr they’re brown” or “xenophobia” to not want your local culture to change or to import all of the worlds ethnic tensions into your street, especially at this point.
This immaturity around the conversation is a large part of the reason the far right are gaining ground, because when we refuse to address legitimate concerns in order to masturbate the self righteous egos of the upper middle class and/or naive students, we are only handing them credibility. Immigration directly affects housing, crime, culture and infrastructure. Gaslighting ourselves and others into thinking immigration is the one policy with no downsides is only destroying our own credibility. I say that as an extremely reluctant lefty.
what culture? tea and crumpets? you think having more immigrants is going to mean we all drive around in tuk tuks and wear indian clothes? it's a stupid point because it's god damn idiotic and based off the whole replacement theory bullshit the nazis spun decades ago. its harping off of fake fear that makes sense in your head but makes none as soon as you try and make an argument for it on paper. and being anti immigrant is incredibly foolish, immigration is heavily regulated, criminals arent supposed to be able to enter, no-one would have issues with stopping that. or bringing in deportation of criminals that arent citizens because they already are a thing. but crime isnt caused by someone being bored and deciding to join a gang. it's caused by poverty, and being that food houses and such arent affordable, we have an aging population and without immigration our economy will collapse in a decade or twon
Whilst I have no issue with someone wanting less immigration, and there is a clear argument to make, the generalisations made about immigrants and the casual racism spouted on the right, is to be charitable, a bit of a turn off. I think less immigration could seem more appealing, even to immigrants, if politicians did not demonise a whole group of people and try to blame every single problem the UK faces on them, and then have the confidence to turn around and ask those very same people to see reason in their argument, well why should they? You’ve just spent the last decade telling them they’re taking up space, stealing money, attacking women, stealing babies, leeching off the system, stealing jobs… I could go on. The right have villainised immigrants and can’t ask the very same people they’ve spent the last decade insulting, to vote for them.
@@sammy-er7on The issue is I don’t know what you mean by generalisations and casual racism. Given the lefts’ disengenous relationship with language at this point there is a fairly good chance you could just mean someone referring to objective facts about disproportionate perpetration rates of certain crimes and/or pointing out incompatible cultural differences.
This of course is without mentioning the extremely irresponsible demonisation of half the country by left leaning politicians and media outlets we have been seeing for the last decade (liberal use of the word fascist/white supremacist and accusations about working for the Russians), as well as the explicit bigotry they justify by projecting onto the majority of the population (Diane Abbott, Hamza yousef). This rhetoric is not just on political or racial grounds but with other bizarre calls like a curfew on men because one guy committed a crime.
Frankly your perspective seems lazy and extremely outdated and as much as I am trying to be diplomatic you really do need to catch up because this arrogant assumption of moral superiority amongst left wing people is ignorant, outdated and hypocritical. Immediately accusing the opposition of something you (or your “side”) are just as guilty of isn’t helpful and will inevitably devolve into a shouting match, especially if the aim of bringing it up is to dismiss the concerns of a significant proportion of the electorate.
Crazy/stupid people will exist everywhere on both sides of any issue, ignorantly attributing them to being exclusive to one side and then constantly bringing them up to dismiss and derail is not insightful. I’m more interested in a healthier conversation about immigration.
I was torn between green party and lib Dems. Green party's views on nuclear energy was one thing that turned me to vote lib Dems.
Reform are also doing proportional voting btw
Wales bus fares currently mean that I have to pay £6.30 for the day as I want to go home again too
£6.30 per day is still FAR less expensive than the costs of owning and operating a vehicle.
My dayrider costs £6.20 too :( Sadly no cap on those
@@dealbreakercno it isn't any it's way less convenient, less safe, less reliable and more stressful. Plus with that fuel duty, ved and insurance tax your putting way more into the public purse.
@@alistairmonro Considering VED, insurance, MOT, servicing, and depreciation... I've already spent about £2k in a year before I've driven anywhere. Each mile then costs 25p in petrol + about 5p more in oil and rubber. Based on how far your journey is, you could use this to work out if the bus really is expensive!
@@PhillipParr not sure what you are planning on driving. You can certainly drive much cheaper than that. For some reliability, safety, comfort and convenience are more important. I suppose it's very case specific taking into consideration age, location etc.
26:38 To cope with illegal immigration, tackle the REASONS for it. Why would anybody risk their lives to get to another country for a chance at a better life? It must mean things back home are really very bad.
War is a business, the racists want more refugees to die before they flee
Indeed. One could refrain from voting for parties that have a track record of destabilising the regions that these migrants are coming from. That would mean not voting Labour or Conservatives.
The greens stance on nuclear power was enough to make me not vote for them regardless of any other policies, they could have been perfect for me other than that and i wouldnt have touched them with a 10ft pole
Great vid, slightly disappointed you didn't end it with 'Whoever you prefer ,if you can ,please remember to vote on Thursday'
Greens and HS2: Carla Denyer has said the bit they objected to has already been built and they'd invest in infrastructure in the north of England. It's not about trees, Greens usually block developments because they would fail to solve problems or fall short of standards - this applies to housing as well, check out some of Carla's recent interviews. You're probably not old enough to remember Sellafield / Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. While I accept nuclear power is better than fossil fuels, I'm still not convinced of its safety. The real problem for the Greens is we need to get rid of the Tories, which means tactical voting.
Even if you take all of those accidents and take the most wildly outlandish estimates of harm caused by them, nuclear has actually still caused less harm per energy even than renewables have. And two of those were already-known mismanagement of already-known flawed designs.
I get nuclear power as it stands is pretty safe, especially compared to fossil fuels. But I think one of the most concerning things about nuclear power is what the greens pointed out, climate change (which lets be honest, it's going to happen a lot, we are now just aiming to lessen impacts at this point) can potentially make nuclear power plants more at risk of damage or melt down. When they go wrong then they can really go wrong. A really bad one in the future getting into the water table could affect millions directly, if not billions, for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yes major melt downs have often been due to mismanagement ect, but that is the world we live in, human error happens, mismanagement will happen again. Why take that long term risk, invest in renewables & aim to make them safer. Nobody died horrifically & literally melted from the inside or had deformed children because of a renewable energy breakdown.
😂😂😂 ur funny. this was great, helped me understand! x
Can we not act like trees aren’t important please? Wildlife in the UK is already so in danger we need to do more to protect our forests
Excellent video. I had already decided to vote Lib Dem even though Labour always get in, in my area. I'm old so I remember what the railway was like before the privatisation, it was easier to book a train back then, maybe because there were fewer of them, but compared with today it was a little more organised.
One thing to note about the vehicle tax for the greens. Electric vehicles tend to be heavier than gasoline ones because of the battery; that increase in weight is around 30% on average. So not only are they planning to force replace the fuel used by the vehicles in an unreasonable amount of time, but they would also increase the tax burden on anyone who owns a car. Given the issues that EVs have in the secondary / resale market, I'm highly suspicious of the overall approach.
Comparable sized Teslas and ICE (internal cobustion) cars have equivalent weights. EVs aren't heavier per se.
This! I don't know why EVs don't pay ANY road tax, since it's just going to make the roads wear away faster the more people have them.
The best way i'v ever gone through the manifestos, thank you for making it informative and fun.
The government could learn a lot, lol.
As appealing as it sounds Reform's idea of removing taxation from healthcare workers for 3 years would not work. First, any temporary increase in take home pay creates industrial tension when staff feel the slap in the face of it ending, potentially more strikes.
Second, a temporary rise without being in headline salary gives no help to the many healthcare workers trying to get a mortgage or other loan or credit deal based on salary. Third, public healthcare systems are very complex - the NHS is now an umbrella brand label of approved organisations, not a single organisation, and staff may be employed by a variety of different organisations within that - If a nurse works in a hospital that treats both NHS and private patients, how could you work out what part of their salary should not be taxed? If a radiographer works only at a few different NHS sites depending on where they're needed, do they not get the tax break because thier employment is contracted out to a private agency? Do privately employed healthcare workers working only with private patients get the tax break - the head physio at Manchester United? What about the highly skilled non-clinical staff, the ward clerks, the medical secretaries who provide such specialist infrastructure?
Finally, I don't see how a 3-year window would in any way attract potential new staff into training for the professions, and could even harm it when potential healthcare students realise that pay will be going down substantially when they qualify.
Difficult.
If it is given to full-time NHS only, I hope the others don't take these people's win and turn it into their loss.
When 1 mans win is another man's frenzy
But lets hope they know a way to make it for everyone
❤ from Northeast England ❤️
I think NHS workers not having to pay as much tax is great as they can then earn more.. it's not a slap in the face, unless i'm not understanding something. I would happily take that. Only NHS workers should get this though, not private!
I have a feeling that more of those might have been worth negative points instead of just a zero. :D
10:32 The Greens are actually promising to provide 150,000 *council* homes not social homes (idk why it says social homes there) which is a pretty big difference. Council homes can be truly guaranteed to be affordable as they are built and provided by the government rather than “affordable” ones which their affordability is pretty much set by if the private sector want to make them or not. Tackling the housing crisis isn’t just about building more homes but building the best and most actually affordable homes and those types of homes are council homes.
26:42 The term ‘illegal migration’ is a false one which the current government basically made up. They class anyone not coming through official government means as “illegal” this means any migrants that are in desperate need of coming here but don’t live in a country with a government issued safe route such as Ukraine are considered illegal and have to travel by methods like small boats. The solution to this is to provide all migrants with the safe and legal routes which will end the demand for small boat crossings as they can get here officially. This is something both the Lib Dem’s and Greens are promising but Labour are sadly not.
34:48 Also Lib Dem’s aren’t the only party wanting to introduce proportional representation lol. Both Greens and Reform want to change the voting system to proportional representation so the Lib Dem’s aren’t special in that regard.
He’s slowly becoming one of us the accents changing haha love it
Not me wishing I had watched this before I voted!!
Nuclear is not as low carbon as you think. There's loads of supporting infrastructure, mining & transporting fuel, plant construction & managing waste for millennia.
Now, compare the mining and fuel transport to other power plants.
@@fuzzysteve Ones that we're phasing out for environmental reasons?
Nuclear has always had the highest construction & operating costs for a reason.
Nuclear power is a way of producing plutonium to sell to the USA to maintain their nuclear weapons programme. Electricity production is a side benefit of nuclear power that gives it a veneer of justification, and carbon doesn't really figure in the considerations either.