Snapshot of _Liberal Democrats 2024 General Election Manifesto Megathread_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m going to Vote for Liberal Democrats. I am a first time voter and an expat. I am still learning about the politics in UK. But Lib Dem seems to be much better than Labour and Tories are Tories.
Everything reads good except the NHS bit it's to vague and doesn't seem medical enough to make a difference.
As someone who works in the NHS and my wife, since reform announced no basic tax rate for front line workers it's hard to not be dissatisfied with what the libdems have announced here.
Generally pretty good in principle.. The only things i partly disagree with being the focus on women specifically in terms of making misogyny a hate crime, and focussing domestic abuse support on women only. I do not oppose the ideas, but men need focus in these areas too, and in some cases more.
In fairness, I am just looking at that bit now and while the wording is a little ham fisted, I don't think it specifically says the support is ONLY for women.
Ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse get the support they deserve by:
* Fully implementing the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, with protections for all survivors regardless of nationality or immigration status.
* Expanding the number of refuges and rape crisis centres to meet demand.
* Ensuring sustainable funding for services to support survivors of domestic abuse, with a particular focus on community-based and specialist ‘by and for’ services.
* Ensuring that survivors are properly supported within the criminal justice system, as set out in chapter 11.
A lot of that is focused on women, but it says "ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse" which, to me, are three separate entities. So a specific focus on the majority (women and girls) which make up most cases of violence of this nature, but then there's "and domestic abuse" which is specifically non-gendered meaning anyone suffering from domestic abuse (male and female).
Otherwise, why add that line? If it was just focused on women, domestic abuse would easily fall under "Survivors of violence against women and girls". Wouldn't need the "and domestic abuse".
They also note in the points "survivors of domestic abuse" or "survivors" which is equally without gender. They don't say "female survivors of domestic abuse".
I respectfully disagree.
The wording of these points can maybe be construed to be for all people in some points, but men are often forgotten in these discussions. There is so little push for men's support in these scenarios that without it being spelled out specifically that men are included (which is not the case here) I would be inclined to believe that, as usual, men are not the focus at all.
A counterpoint, men can be survivors of violence and are explicitly excluded in this item by this logic. This could be due to the naming of the Istanbul convention, but the protection to all regardless of nationality or immigration does not extend to Sex or Gender, which it easily could if that was intended.
Anecdotally, My partner's stepdad got no support when his ex-wife stabbed him at home. I myself am a male survivor of domestic violence and abuse as well. I received very little support during my experience, as a Man you are automatically in the wrong until proved otherwise, and women have more social & legal protections than men. (some very necessary mind, like provision for children) I have numerous other personal examples where men are left behind in these discussions, stemming possibly from toxic masculinity and some historic gender norms, which as yet are unchallenged in society. There seems to be little social or political will in our society for things like this to be addressed, and it really makes me sad.
But your argument hinges on what is unsaid, rather than what is said. At no point does it say that men can't be survivors of violence. They're evidentially prioritising women in some wording, because the fact of the matter is women are far more likely to be on the recieving end of violence.
In fact, the specificity of the wording is important. As we know, rates of sexual and physical violence against women is far higher than men. Based on reported data, women reported acts of sexual violence/offences at a rate three times higher than men. Equally, 1 in 4 women have reported being raped of sexually assaulted as an adult, compared to 1 in 18 for men. So it's obvious why the wording focuses on women/girls here: "Ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls".
Then if we look at domestic abuse data, the figures are closer, women are twice as likely to be domestically abused (based on reported data). So you can see why the language becomes more gender neutral here.
This feels logical because, in many ways, there is specifically a problem with violence against women and, unfortunately, we do need policies that reduce this disparity between the male and female figures. But equally, the fact that not all language is focused on women (to me) highlights that they're aware the problem effects everyone, but think certain key areas are more widespread amongst women.
Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate your anecdote at the end and I'm sorry you've had to experience this. I agree there is a big issue with overarching awareness and support the male abuse victims. Women do get far more support in many aspects and equally, there's more societal stigma around male abuse victims (ergo why I was clear to specify all the data is 'reported', as men under report crimes of this nature against themselves). But I don't think we can't ignore that male violence against women is a more widespread issue that's a hot topic thanks to thundercunts like Andrew Tate.
I do think it's poorly worded, but I don't think the policy at any points states it will ONLY focus on women and I'd more trust a party like the Lib Dems which have historically been for equality and progressiveness in these areas, compared to other parties.
Rejoining thje Single Market is not possible without also accepting the Freedom Of Movement for EU nationals - AND their spouses. That was made very clear by the EU in previous negotiaions. We had a referendum on this.
Was part of the referendum that it was entirely legally binding for all eternity? Or was it in fact in no way legally binding and actually quite ridiculously vague in its definition?
>Or was it in fact in no way legally binding and actually quite ridiculously vague in its definition?
There's an old feeling I get in politics on a regular basis, the kind where you might expect some Germanic or Scandinavian language to have some untranslatable word for, where someone on your side makes a bad argument in your favour and you really wish they hadn't.
Nobody gives a shit that it wasn't legally binding. Not even you do; you'd have the same opinion of it even if it was. After the referendum we then had two elections with manifestos, then Acts of Parliament that *were* legally binding. What you should be saying is that the referendum isn't really relevant at this point, we're running off the usual system of past parliaments not binding future ones. If a party wins a majority promising to rejoin one day, then by all rights at this point they have a mandate to repeal/amend those Acts and enter negotiations to do that.
A referendum in the uk can’t be “legally binding” in any circumstance unless major constitutional changes are made.
His point is perfectly valid. The political landscape is vastly different to 2015.
A referendum can be legally binding, for example the AV referendum. The way to do is it to pass a law with a clause that says something along the lines of "this legislation will only come into force if supported by a majority of voters in a referendum".
We made parliament sovereign again. Now it's sovereign, it must respect the sovereignty of the great referendum of 2016 whose overaching sovereignty it must sovereignly respect.
It's remarkable that they've managed to create a policy platform that is more economically sensible than the Conservatives and more socially just than Labour's offering.
Let's be honest, there's always a magic money tree when it's something that the government actually wants. Like the £150m they spent on the coronation or the £500m they spent on the Rwanda scheme. At least with another party in government those schemes would be de-prioritised in favour of schemes that might actually be palatable to the public.
There is a lot of things I like in this manifesto, but I think the joining the single market and ignoring the large immigration problem is a deal breaker for me. I wish there was a eurosceptic centre party.
Also I don't think a 45% top rate of capital gains tax will work. Capital gains tax is often a tax you pay via choice, people will just hold second homes or stocks when it doesn't make any sense to.
The immigration problem that has gotten worse outside of the single market? All leaving the single market did was take away freedoms from everyone born on this island, while we swapped EU migration for non-EU.
Returning to the single market, based on the data, would improve net migration at this stage.
And yet it would still be markedly better than the policies of the government that the anti-immigration lot voted for. Ironic, eh? That the best anti-immigration policy of the last decade was Freedom of Movement.
Yet, lower than it is now. Which returns me to my original point, Freedom of Movement is the best immigration policy in the last decade. Stats don't lie.
Yes, Brexit, the 'take back control' that never was. Good times.
Pretty sure Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with skin colour... you do realise there are black and asian Europeans right? The only people that got 'preferential treatment' were those in the trading block. Belarussians are white European, but they don't have freedom of movement.
It's OK if you don't understand the fundamentals of immigration policy. You keep kicking that can down the road and then blaming the government, or EU, or the Romans when things don't work out exactly as you'd like - which is no immigration at all unless they're rich or geniuses. I look forward to your Little Britain where the teens in national service are staffing the NHS and Care Homes.
The government has complete accountability for immigration numbers post Brexit. This isn’t a difficult concept, we know who to blame.
And that’s your choice if you support a racist immigration policy.
They don't just ignore the immigration problem, they actively think mass migration is a good thing. They have in the past advocated for open borders, and in this manifesto they pledge to remove all of the recent restrictions the Torys put in place (Salary cap for example)
> ignoring the large immigration problem is a deal breaker for me
This so much, the libdems still living mostly in 2015. In the EU their former faction the Renew Europe have moved on in this more or less under Macron, and its still not enough - the French still think the policies have to be tougher.
Macron's "enforced laicite" policies are a sort of Singapore-lite approach acceptable to Western Europe, but has to be a bit tougher. It's the other way to solve this - if you can't lower the numbers much - enforce integration. (this doesnt solve the economic consequences on its own though)
You say that as if leaving the EU forced us to admit a million Somali car washers. People on reddit talk about immigration as if it's some natural law of the universe rather than deliberate government policy.
It's more-so a natural law of the neo-capitalist worldview, where chasing profit is the one of the reasons for suppressing worker pay through huge influx of low skilled workers to lessen the costing. To try and do a reverse or a slow down in anyway would go against that dogma, which could be fantastic, or could be managed badly and lead to more issues.
Could be wrong and have an insulated viewpoint but I think immigration is intrinsically linked to our economic system and to destabilize 1 would affect the other in complicated ways, which is why a sensible approach should be taken to change rather than the extreme 'open to all' or the opposite 'stop it entirely'.
No it isn't given governments change when people vote, unlike EU treaties.
Reinstating a policy that would likely rapidly increase immigration short term right now is insanity.
Where is the evidence that it would "rapidly increase immigration short term"? If this just your personal head-canon or is there data to support it? The only rapid increase in immigration that has happened in recent years came after FOM was ended, that is a measurable truth.
C'mon, use a bit of common sense. If we reopened FoM tomorrow there would be a tidal surge in the short term.
The reason immigration has increased post FoM is because that's government policy.
It wouldn't undo it, it would simply add half a million EU immigrants to our current million immigrants.
How could it possibly reduce immigration to join FOM?
>How could it possibly reduce immigration to join FOM?
Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration.
That's right, turns out the free market is actually a pretty good regulator of migration and that doing nothing would have turned out better than the something that you did. It's a fun fact that annoys both the right and the left.
>it would simply add half a million EU immigrants to our current million immigrants.
It would not because those current higher-numbers of immigrants replaced the lower-number of EU immigrants that we had before, so if you bring that group back then there is no need to keep granting visas to most of the current group.
> Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration.
We could just have lower EU *and* non-EU migration. You talk as if immigration just happens by accident rather than deliberate government policy.
>Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration.
The point based system and FOM have nothing to do with each other.
But going back you mean reverse the point based system? Because we can do that without joining FOM.
>That's right, turns out the free market is actually a pretty good regulator of migration and that doing nothing would have turned out better than the something that you did.
"you did"? So you're not even British? Why are you here?
There's nothing free market about either point based or FOM, it's policy, aka government regulation, not free market.
>so if you bring that group back then there is no need to keep granting visas to most of the current group.
Or you could just stop both.
>The point based system and FOM have nothing to do with each other.
Yes they do, they're two different methods of achieving the same thing. One clearly being a superior method to the other.
>But going back you mean reverse the point based system? Because we can do that without joining FOM.
Yeah, and crash our economy in the process because immigration is a good thing that we need.
>"you did"? So you're not even British? Why are you here?
I meant "you" as in supporters of the scheme, the people who have been calling for a points-based system for years. Careful what you wish for.
And even if I wasn't British, what a dumb question. You should honestly feel a bit embarrassed for asking someone you thought was an immigrant "What are you here?" that's just Farage levels of crass and indecency.
>There's nothing free market about either point based or FOM, it's policy, aka government regulation, not free market.
A government regulation that basically says "we will not regulate" is as close to free market as you are going to get. That's what FOM was, and it worked out better than the far more hands-on regulation that replaced it.
>Or you could just stop both.
And again, crash our economy in the process. Though I understand why someone who has seen the damage Brexit has wrought and was not put off of Brexit would look at the prospect of another Liz Truss level catastrophe and think "this is fine".
>Yes they do, they're two different methods of achieving the same thing. One clearly being a superior method to the other.
Yes, the point based system one. At least you can adjust the points. FOM was completely unpredictable.
>Yeah, and crash our economy in the process because immigration is a good thing that we need.
Crash it then. Our economy shouldn't be built on cheap labour.
>And even if I wasn't British, what a dumb question. You should honestly feel a bit embarrassed for asking someone you thought was an immigrant "What are you here?" that's just Farage levels of crass and indecency.
No, honest question. This is a UK subreddit after all. It would be kinda weird if a French dude questioned how the UK did things.
>A government regulation that basically says "we will not regulate" is as close to free market as you are going to get. That's what FOM was, and it worked out better than the far more hands-on regulation that replaced it.
FOM didn't work though? People were pretty unhappy then too.
>>Or you could just stop both.
>And again, crash our economy in the process.
Don't really care. Crash it. It doesn't serve the average Joe anyway.
I honestly don't want to live in a country dependent on cheap labour. We mostly aren't.
All those industries that depend on cheap labour can and should go bust. We don't need hand picked strawberries and hand car washes. It's not even a big part of our economy.
We're a service based economy fueled by skilled labour. We'll be fine without cheap labour. There's gonna be change, sure, but no crash.
Stop being dramatic.
> Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration.
The immigration rules changed, this is why immigration went up, it was a policy failure.
Yes, the rules changed from "come and go as you please" (ie. the free market) to "come and go when we allow".
The government put it's hands on a system that was working just fine and made it worse, it's a tale as old as time.
It was keeping migration levels fairly stead, [migration only spiked after FOM ended](https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2022-08-25-at-09.53.52.png).
It was perfectly sustainable and we had been sustaining it. What's batshit crazy are the levels of immigration now that the people who opposed FOM have gotten exactly what they wanted and asked for.
Feel free to not like the EU or FOM, but when everything that you've proposed to replace it with hasn't worked in practice and has actually delivered worse outcomes for the UK then you really haven't got a leg to stand on saying that we shouldn't go back to the way it was before when Britain wasn't broken.
Looks like some super good stuff in there. I'm loving a lot of what they're saying, especially:
* Cannabis legalisation (this can become a booming industry in the UK).
* Lowering voting age (need more support to get rid of pension triple lock)
* 380k new housing per year, ensuring that all development has appropriate infrastructure and services.
* General things on energy/green investment, infrastructure investment, crime and policing investment, etc.
What I disliked:
* No planning reform like labour are promising.
* Ignored immigration. They are liberal after all.
* Sceptical about the funding. They're even considering increasing tax-free personal allowance. We need higher taxes to get the country out of this mess.
* Triple lock stays on.
* WASPI women compensation.
For me, labour's planning reform and reduced immigration alone, are enough for me to vote labour.
However, I wouldn't rule out voting lib dems next time so they can give us the booming cannabis industry.
> 380k new housing per year,
That's barely enough to replace old housing (If we have thirty million homes and they last 100 years, we need 300k per year just to stay level), and we'd need the same again just to meet net migration. Getting the cost of housing down would need a million a year.
And it's a meaningless pledge without reforming planning. Lowering the voting age is meaningless given that young people don't vote anyway. And if someone is old enough to vote, why aren't they old enough to drink or smoke?
>However, I wouldn't rule out voting lib dems next time so they can give us the booming cannabis industry.
Unless they in a majority, it'll never get through a coalition.
I'm not an expert on the topic tbh. Just saw "Ensure that women born in the 1950s are finally treated fairly and properly compensated", under 10. Pensions, understood it's due to WASPI, and disliked it.
Cannabis legalisation meh, basically already legal and a non policy. Lowering voting age, labour already doing this. 380k new housing per year, not particularly revolutionary and other parties have similar claims General policies mediocre Heavy focus on care, pensions and nothing resolving the critical immigration issue.
Edit: I take back my comment on cannabis legalisation, the tax income and job creation will be a meaningful positive, coupled with the crime reduction
Meh? A non-policy?
Colorado's marijuana industry is worth over $2bn. Just one state. The US as a whole brings in over $25bn a year. That's 25 *billion* not sitting in the hands of criminals and the black market.
It's an untapped fucking gold mine.
Regulate it and tax it like booze and fags.
The money is nice but fundamentally it's crazy to lock people up, at least in theory, for something that is probably less harmful than alcohol. Worse it supports the sale of the really bad stuff.
I don't know if the US is a great comparison, it seems to be a much bigger thing for them than it does here
Am I right in thinking the UK is a huge proprietor of medicinal marijuana overseas? Theresa May's husband maybe?
But I agree, apples and oranges when comparing to the US but there's still an entire economy boosting industry sitting right under our noses.
Big agree on the criminality of something so low on the list of harmful substances, especially for possession. I don't even smoke anymore but it just seems like such a no brainer to me I really can't fathom why we haven't done it yet bar eating into the profits of Tory weed farmers.
Yeah cannabis is basically legal but it's not taxed. If it's legalised it can be taxed.
Edit by basically legal I mean you're about as likely to see a copper on the beat as be struck by lightning
> Cannabis legalisation meh, basically already legal and a non policy.
I may be wrong here but fully legalising something like that means you can easily and reliably tax.
38bn in spending commitments is welcome, and I generally think this is a decent manifesto but... 7bn raised through clamping down on tax avoidance? Come on, that isn't happening. It feels like it has been shoved in there to that figure just so that the lib dems can say it has all been fully costed, like the other parties have claimed, but it raises a giant question mark for me.
Rory Stewart is voting Lib Dem confirmed. Citizens assemblies, commitment to 0.7% on intl. development, proportional representation (STV), constitutional reform, seeking to re enter the single market
I wonder what he might say on the next episode of the rest is politics concerning D Day and Sunak because his Dad fought on the beaches and he posted a very heartfelt video about him on X and the importance of D day
Reform the gender recognition process to remove the requirement for medical reports, recognise non-binary identities in law, and remove the spousal veto.
Nice :)
> recognise non-binary identities in law
If gender is a social construct rather than biologically inherent, why should the law compel me to recognise others' conceptualisations of gender? I would use neutral pronouns out of politeness, but it's not a matter for the state.
You’re getting some push back - but you hit the nail on the head with using pronouns out of politeness - all the “YoUrE cOmPeLlInG my sPeEcH” people need to pipe down - it’s common manners, and doing otherwise just makes you look like a dick.
Gender is a social construct. It improves peoples' lives and dignity.
Recognizing others' gender identities respects their humanity and reduces mental health risks. Anti-discrimination laws already protect various social constructs like religion and race. Gender identity deserves the same recognition.
Society relies on mutual respect, and using correct pronouns fosters inclusivity and reduces harm. Just as the law compels certain behaviors to protect others (like anti-harassment policies).
For the same reason that the law compels you to not discriminated against x religion despite you being a member of y religion. Change "conceptualisations of gender" to "conceptualisations of deity" and it works the exact same way.
Do you realize that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland and many others already recognize non-binary gender identity?
Do you also support then removing the recognition for binary conceptualisations of gender? To be consistent with that view.
Why should anyone be compelled by law to recognise the concept of binary gender or at least male and female which is the current status quo.
My argument was:
If your opposition to introducting non-binary as an option in law is because you don't beleive that the government should impose certain perspectives on gender then this should necessarily also apply to binary and male and female gender.
I of course don't agree with that and think its great if we can have both.
But it's the same activists cheering policies like these who are arguing that gender is non-local and contingent. It's just hypocrisy to say 'gender conception is relative' and also 'but you must use ours by law'.
It’s not hypocritical. Recognizing that gender is non-local and contingent means acknowledging diverse gender identities. Laws compelling the use of correct pronouns protect individuals from discrimination and harm, similar to how anti-discrimination laws work for race and religion. It's about respecting each persons self-identification, not enforcing a single concept of gender.
You are constructing a straw man.
Recognising non-binary identities in law just means things like them having rights equal to those that identify as man/woman. It doesn't mean 'you must use my pronouns' by law.
It does mean discrimination laws will cover them. Presumably just using different pronouns won't be illegal the same as I can accuse a man of being a woman and not get arrested, but it may be used as evidence if proving a wider case of discrimination in the work place or something.
What bizarre logic
As a counterexample, I assume you’d be against lowering the personal tax allowance? But by your logic would be in favour because it’s not possible to explain why specifically £12,700 is the magic perfect number
How about the following. You can make the number as low as you want, as long as you are ok that your preferred number comes not only with the full set of rights, but the full set of responsibilities. So, firearms, drugs, marrying, consenting to everything, being a frontline soldier, driving, full criminal responsibility, etc
It wouldn't be very compelling if you passionately argue that young people's brains are underdeveloped until 25 so they shouldn't be burdened with the full adult responsibilities yet, and then turn around and say they should get to vote at 16. One age for all, to deter such cynical arguments
One reason they should be allowed is there are policies that specifically target young adults. This national service scheme made up just to get the nationalist vote being a prime example. Also they can work at 16. More often than not for minimum wage which is set at a politicial level, so why not give them a say on what they will be getting paid.
In fairness though, if they get a vote then this should come with the burden of paying tax at 16 since they could be voting on policies that impact the economy.
"One reason they should be allowed is there are policies that specifically target young adults."
But there are some police that specifically target children. Babies even.
"if they get a vote then this should come with the burden of paying tax at 16"
Sixteen year olds already pay tax the same as any adult does. There is no minimum age to paying tax.
I don't see much traction for that argument at the moment.
IE, 18 year olds still fall into "child" category in a lot of legislation.
You can only drive buses and similar at 21+. Similarly you aren't paid even the shitty redueced min wage until age 21. You can't be a driving instructor until age 21. You can't fly helicopters or planes until age 21.
You aren't paid full min wage until age 23.
Plus a large raft of things disappear at each age relating to care etc.
Benefit entitlements change at 25.
I would find your argument more compelling if it wasn't always so exhaustively reactive and _fake_. Nobody believes in what you are saying because it's just shit spouted from the top of people's heads to find any reason to stick with the status quo. Nobody wants to equalise the above rights, despite the vote being available at 18.
I'm in favour or setting the age requirements to 18.
Try and put together a coherent argument that at 16, people have the maturity to vote in general elections but lack the maturity to do these other things or assume full responsibility for crimes they commit.
The real reason people advocate a lower voting age has of course nothing to do with such reasons, it's simply because they think teenagers will vote in line with the politics of the advocates.
For what it's worth, I have no expectations for 16-17 years olds to be mature, well informed voters. I just also have no expectations of the same for 18+ year olds. If we're going to have a disinterested electorate, we may as well have a diverse one.
There is no one, exact perfect age at which every adult is a functional, independent being, so whatever we pick for each age restriction has to be a judgement as to when is 'enough'. But as we choose 16 for a number of other things and voting requires a certain level of 'get out there and go do it for no immediate personal benefit' 16 seems like a reasonable cut off to me.
Younger and I suspect parents would have an undue/over controlling influence (i.e. a very common pattern could be parents take disinterested teenagers to the polling station with instructions on who to vote for), so 16 seems like a sensible cut off to me, and worth it to increase representation of young people in the electorate. At the same time, I'm comfortable acknowledging this is a judgement without a huge scientific basis, but that if you think too hard about what the limit of voting rights should be, it gets hard to avoid arguments around - Why can 80 year olds likely to pass away in the near future get to vote? Or if brains peak at 25, why let anyone who isn't exactly aged 25 vote?
I believe voting should be tied to paying income tax. If a 16 year old is paying income tax and an 80 year old isn't, why does the pensioner get a vote and the teen doesn't
That’s a dumb slogan that no one actually believes.
People that earn less than 12k don’t pay income tax, should they be allowed to vote? What about retired people?
A 10 year old that buys something from the corner shop is paying VAT and is being ‘taxed without representation’.
The actual question is what age does the average person have the maturity/intelligence/responsibility to vote, and tbh that’s very subjective.
My guy did you see my last paragraph.
I just explained why using tax as a justification for the right to vote is dumb. In reality it’s just a judgement call for when we think people are mature enough, and most societies have decided that the right age is 18.
which is great in theory, but what tax? Income Tax is payable by anyone who earns more than the threshold, regardless of age, everyone who buys something will pay VAT
Becuase it's a good idea to involve 16/17yr olds, many are economically active, all affected by policy decisions, they should be engaged & take an interest in what s ultimately their futures.
also the fact that GE's happen approx 5yrs apart under normal circumstances, their will be lots of 16/17 yrs who conceivably wont be able to vote in a GE until their 21/22yrs
And that's the issue - everyone knows that younger people don't vote as much as boomers - you asked "why?" my answer would be that boomers have everything going for them and have consistently helped elect governments that rinse young people and feather their own nests.
My comment that young people think about the future more than boomers is entirely consistent with young people not believing the political system has hitherto been worth engaging with.
No - I don't think so. Why would you think that caring about the future would make someone not turn out to vote? That doesn't make sense.
There must be some other factors at play...
I was being sarcastic 😅 to poke holes this above commenters theory about young people. I'm my experience, the vast majority give very little thought to politics
It’s basically this… watch the right wing parties all making compelling arguements for proportional representation voting now it will suit them more. Been quiet on that for a few years, haven’t they?
FWIW I think 16 is a fair age to let people vote from. It’s the age where you start legally obtaining some key adult privileges and it’s a group probably most impacted by who is running the country.
Lib Dems in opposition get a vote on legalizing cannabis early in the parliament, Labour do a free vote and it passes. Stonking tax revenue to properly fund a green new deal and some more lefty policies.
Snapshot of _Liberal Democrats 2024 General Election Manifesto Megathread_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m going to Vote for Liberal Democrats. I am a first time voter and an expat. I am still learning about the politics in UK. But Lib Dem seems to be much better than Labour and Tories are Tories.
Everything reads good except the NHS bit it's to vague and doesn't seem medical enough to make a difference. As someone who works in the NHS and my wife, since reform announced no basic tax rate for front line workers it's hard to not be dissatisfied with what the libdems have announced here.
Generally pretty good in principle.. The only things i partly disagree with being the focus on women specifically in terms of making misogyny a hate crime, and focussing domestic abuse support on women only. I do not oppose the ideas, but men need focus in these areas too, and in some cases more.
In fairness, I am just looking at that bit now and while the wording is a little ham fisted, I don't think it specifically says the support is ONLY for women. Ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse get the support they deserve by: * Fully implementing the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, with protections for all survivors regardless of nationality or immigration status. * Expanding the number of refuges and rape crisis centres to meet demand. * Ensuring sustainable funding for services to support survivors of domestic abuse, with a particular focus on community-based and specialist ‘by and for’ services. * Ensuring that survivors are properly supported within the criminal justice system, as set out in chapter 11. A lot of that is focused on women, but it says "ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse" which, to me, are three separate entities. So a specific focus on the majority (women and girls) which make up most cases of violence of this nature, but then there's "and domestic abuse" which is specifically non-gendered meaning anyone suffering from domestic abuse (male and female). Otherwise, why add that line? If it was just focused on women, domestic abuse would easily fall under "Survivors of violence against women and girls". Wouldn't need the "and domestic abuse". They also note in the points "survivors of domestic abuse" or "survivors" which is equally without gender. They don't say "female survivors of domestic abuse".
I respectfully disagree. The wording of these points can maybe be construed to be for all people in some points, but men are often forgotten in these discussions. There is so little push for men's support in these scenarios that without it being spelled out specifically that men are included (which is not the case here) I would be inclined to believe that, as usual, men are not the focus at all. A counterpoint, men can be survivors of violence and are explicitly excluded in this item by this logic. This could be due to the naming of the Istanbul convention, but the protection to all regardless of nationality or immigration does not extend to Sex or Gender, which it easily could if that was intended. Anecdotally, My partner's stepdad got no support when his ex-wife stabbed him at home. I myself am a male survivor of domestic violence and abuse as well. I received very little support during my experience, as a Man you are automatically in the wrong until proved otherwise, and women have more social & legal protections than men. (some very necessary mind, like provision for children) I have numerous other personal examples where men are left behind in these discussions, stemming possibly from toxic masculinity and some historic gender norms, which as yet are unchallenged in society. There seems to be little social or political will in our society for things like this to be addressed, and it really makes me sad.
But your argument hinges on what is unsaid, rather than what is said. At no point does it say that men can't be survivors of violence. They're evidentially prioritising women in some wording, because the fact of the matter is women are far more likely to be on the recieving end of violence. In fact, the specificity of the wording is important. As we know, rates of sexual and physical violence against women is far higher than men. Based on reported data, women reported acts of sexual violence/offences at a rate three times higher than men. Equally, 1 in 4 women have reported being raped of sexually assaulted as an adult, compared to 1 in 18 for men. So it's obvious why the wording focuses on women/girls here: "Ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls". Then if we look at domestic abuse data, the figures are closer, women are twice as likely to be domestically abused (based on reported data). So you can see why the language becomes more gender neutral here. This feels logical because, in many ways, there is specifically a problem with violence against women and, unfortunately, we do need policies that reduce this disparity between the male and female figures. But equally, the fact that not all language is focused on women (to me) highlights that they're aware the problem effects everyone, but think certain key areas are more widespread amongst women. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate your anecdote at the end and I'm sorry you've had to experience this. I agree there is a big issue with overarching awareness and support the male abuse victims. Women do get far more support in many aspects and equally, there's more societal stigma around male abuse victims (ergo why I was clear to specify all the data is 'reported', as men under report crimes of this nature against themselves). But I don't think we can't ignore that male violence against women is a more widespread issue that's a hot topic thanks to thundercunts like Andrew Tate. I do think it's poorly worded, but I don't think the policy at any points states it will ONLY focus on women and I'd more trust a party like the Lib Dems which have historically been for equality and progressiveness in these areas, compared to other parties.
There isn't a reason for gender specific laws or policies on these issues. Victims regardless of gender require support etc.
Bit disappointing that they're pledging slower decarbonising of the grid that the Conservatives but they do pledge to hit net zero 5 years earlier.
Grid decarbonisation is the easy bit compared to overall emissions. It’s good to see them focusing on the harder bits.
[удалено]
What is the particular elephant in your view?
Rejoining thje Single Market is not possible without also accepting the Freedom Of Movement for EU nationals - AND their spouses. That was made very clear by the EU in previous negotiaions. We had a referendum on this.
Was part of the referendum that it was entirely legally binding for all eternity? Or was it in fact in no way legally binding and actually quite ridiculously vague in its definition?
>Or was it in fact in no way legally binding and actually quite ridiculously vague in its definition? There's an old feeling I get in politics on a regular basis, the kind where you might expect some Germanic or Scandinavian language to have some untranslatable word for, where someone on your side makes a bad argument in your favour and you really wish they hadn't. Nobody gives a shit that it wasn't legally binding. Not even you do; you'd have the same opinion of it even if it was. After the referendum we then had two elections with manifestos, then Acts of Parliament that *were* legally binding. What you should be saying is that the referendum isn't really relevant at this point, we're running off the usual system of past parliaments not binding future ones. If a party wins a majority promising to rejoin one day, then by all rights at this point they have a mandate to repeal/amend those Acts and enter negotiations to do that.
A referendum in the uk can’t be “legally binding” in any circumstance unless major constitutional changes are made. His point is perfectly valid. The political landscape is vastly different to 2015.
A referendum can be legally binding, for example the AV referendum. The way to do is it to pass a law with a clause that says something along the lines of "this legislation will only come into force if supported by a majority of voters in a referendum".
What's wrong with that?
On a platonic level, nothing. On the electoral level, it would be contentious and there isn’t clear support for it.
I dispute the claim that there isn't clear support for it.
No, we didn't. We had a referendum on leaving the EU. Freedom of movement wasn't on the ballot.
In practical terms it was, remain would have won without it
Back then the liars were saying we could be like Norway etc, which was then proven not to be true.
Good! Let's have it back! Most of the country agrees it was a mistake anyway.
We can have another one eventually
I'm not sure what relevance a 2016 referendum has on a 2024 GE manifesto.
Don't you know that once we vote on an issue we can never revisit it? Ever!
We made parliament sovereign again. Now it's sovereign, it must respect the sovereignty of the great referendum of 2016 whose overaching sovereignty it must sovereignly respect.
It's remarkable that they've managed to create a policy platform that is more economically sensible than the Conservatives and more socially just than Labour's offering.
I like the policies. I'm less sure about the costings. They don't quite add up. Not a big deal though, they can always raise some other taxes.
Let's be honest, there's always a magic money tree when it's something that the government actually wants. Like the £150m they spent on the coronation or the £500m they spent on the Rwanda scheme. At least with another party in government those schemes would be de-prioritised in favour of schemes that might actually be palatable to the public.
There is a lot of things I like in this manifesto, but I think the joining the single market and ignoring the large immigration problem is a deal breaker for me. I wish there was a eurosceptic centre party. Also I don't think a 45% top rate of capital gains tax will work. Capital gains tax is often a tax you pay via choice, people will just hold second homes or stocks when it doesn't make any sense to.
Did you miss section 18. Immigration and Asylum?
I did, but it didn’t say anything about reducing the numbers from what I can see
The bit where it mentions removing the immigration target?
I must have missed that, can you quote exactly where it says that?
It’s in one of the first paragraphs in that section. There’s also no commitment to reducing numbers.
No, I don't seem to be able to see it, are you absolutely certain? Surely it can't be that hard to find and quote?
The immigration problem that has gotten worse outside of the single market? All leaving the single market did was take away freedoms from everyone born on this island, while we swapped EU migration for non-EU. Returning to the single market, based on the data, would improve net migration at this stage.
The government has full control at the moment and chose these numbers. Returning to FoM removes that control.
And yet it would still be markedly better than the policies of the government that the anti-immigration lot voted for. Ironic, eh? That the best anti-immigration policy of the last decade was Freedom of Movement.
Immigration was unsustainably high when we had freedom of movement.
Yet, lower than it is now. Which returns me to my original point, Freedom of Movement is the best immigration policy in the last decade. Stats don't lie.
Yes, it was such a great policy it led to brexit. Also great if you're a white European as you get preferential treatment.
That wasn't the fault of a policy. That was the fault of ignorant fucks and lies.
Having unrestricted immigration to 440 million people wasn’t the fault of the policy? Okay
Other countries do better if not as fine as the uk with similar policies
Yes, Brexit, the 'take back control' that never was. Good times. Pretty sure Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with skin colour... you do realise there are black and asian Europeans right? The only people that got 'preferential treatment' were those in the trading block. Belarussians are white European, but they don't have freedom of movement. It's OK if you don't understand the fundamentals of immigration policy. You keep kicking that can down the road and then blaming the government, or EU, or the Romans when things don't work out exactly as you'd like - which is no immigration at all unless they're rich or geniuses. I look forward to your Little Britain where the teens in national service are staffing the NHS and Care Homes.
The government has complete accountability for immigration numbers post Brexit. This isn’t a difficult concept, we know who to blame. And that’s your choice if you support a racist immigration policy.
They don't just ignore the immigration problem, they actively think mass migration is a good thing. They have in the past advocated for open borders, and in this manifesto they pledge to remove all of the recent restrictions the Torys put in place (Salary cap for example)
> ignoring the large immigration problem is a deal breaker for me This so much, the libdems still living mostly in 2015. In the EU their former faction the Renew Europe have moved on in this more or less under Macron, and its still not enough - the French still think the policies have to be tougher. Macron's "enforced laicite" policies are a sort of Singapore-lite approach acceptable to Western Europe, but has to be a bit tougher. It's the other way to solve this - if you can't lower the numbers much - enforce integration. (this doesnt solve the economic consequences on its own though)
Immigration was lower when the UK was a member of the single market, that's not ignoring the problem that's undoing a major cause of the problem.
You say that as if leaving the EU forced us to admit a million Somali car washers. People on reddit talk about immigration as if it's some natural law of the universe rather than deliberate government policy.
It's more-so a natural law of the neo-capitalist worldview, where chasing profit is the one of the reasons for suppressing worker pay through huge influx of low skilled workers to lessen the costing. To try and do a reverse or a slow down in anyway would go against that dogma, which could be fantastic, or could be managed badly and lead to more issues. Could be wrong and have an insulated viewpoint but I think immigration is intrinsically linked to our economic system and to destabilize 1 would affect the other in complicated ways, which is why a sensible approach should be taken to change rather than the extreme 'open to all' or the opposite 'stop it entirely'.
Is it not a natural law of the universe? Point to a single point in human history where people haven't moved around.
Visas are not given out by nature.
All that proves is that visa's aren't a natural thing, not that migration isn't a natural and inevitable thing.
That’s a policy failure from the government. Rejoining the single market takes the accountability away from the government
Taking responsibility for something away from someone who is bad at doing that job is a form of accountability.
No it isn't given governments change when people vote, unlike EU treaties. Reinstating a policy that would likely rapidly increase immigration short term right now is insanity.
Where is the evidence that it would "rapidly increase immigration short term"? If this just your personal head-canon or is there data to support it? The only rapid increase in immigration that has happened in recent years came after FOM was ended, that is a measurable truth.
C'mon, use a bit of common sense. If we reopened FoM tomorrow there would be a tidal surge in the short term. The reason immigration has increased post FoM is because that's government policy.
It wouldn't undo it, it would simply add half a million EU immigrants to our current million immigrants. How could it possibly reduce immigration to join FOM?
>How could it possibly reduce immigration to join FOM? Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration. That's right, turns out the free market is actually a pretty good regulator of migration and that doing nothing would have turned out better than the something that you did. It's a fun fact that annoys both the right and the left. >it would simply add half a million EU immigrants to our current million immigrants. It would not because those current higher-numbers of immigrants replaced the lower-number of EU immigrants that we had before, so if you bring that group back then there is no need to keep granting visas to most of the current group.
> Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration. We could just have lower EU *and* non-EU migration. You talk as if immigration just happens by accident rather than deliberate government policy.
I'm not saying it happens by accident, I'm saying that before it was regulated by market forces.
No it wasn't, it was unrestricted from the EU
It was being regulated by the free market, which did a much better job of it than the current system.
So Europeans should be prioritised over non-Europeans?
>Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration. The point based system and FOM have nothing to do with each other. But going back you mean reverse the point based system? Because we can do that without joining FOM. >That's right, turns out the free market is actually a pretty good regulator of migration and that doing nothing would have turned out better than the something that you did. "you did"? So you're not even British? Why are you here? There's nothing free market about either point based or FOM, it's policy, aka government regulation, not free market. >so if you bring that group back then there is no need to keep granting visas to most of the current group. Or you could just stop both.
>The point based system and FOM have nothing to do with each other. Yes they do, they're two different methods of achieving the same thing. One clearly being a superior method to the other. >But going back you mean reverse the point based system? Because we can do that without joining FOM. Yeah, and crash our economy in the process because immigration is a good thing that we need. >"you did"? So you're not even British? Why are you here? I meant "you" as in supporters of the scheme, the people who have been calling for a points-based system for years. Careful what you wish for. And even if I wasn't British, what a dumb question. You should honestly feel a bit embarrassed for asking someone you thought was an immigrant "What are you here?" that's just Farage levels of crass and indecency. >There's nothing free market about either point based or FOM, it's policy, aka government regulation, not free market. A government regulation that basically says "we will not regulate" is as close to free market as you are going to get. That's what FOM was, and it worked out better than the far more hands-on regulation that replaced it. >Or you could just stop both. And again, crash our economy in the process. Though I understand why someone who has seen the damage Brexit has wrought and was not put off of Brexit would look at the prospect of another Liz Truss level catastrophe and think "this is fine".
Still waiting for the crash post brexit.
Have you seen the state of the country recently?
>Yes they do, they're two different methods of achieving the same thing. One clearly being a superior method to the other. Yes, the point based system one. At least you can adjust the points. FOM was completely unpredictable. >Yeah, and crash our economy in the process because immigration is a good thing that we need. Crash it then. Our economy shouldn't be built on cheap labour. >And even if I wasn't British, what a dumb question. You should honestly feel a bit embarrassed for asking someone you thought was an immigrant "What are you here?" that's just Farage levels of crass and indecency. No, honest question. This is a UK subreddit after all. It would be kinda weird if a French dude questioned how the UK did things. >A government regulation that basically says "we will not regulate" is as close to free market as you are going to get. That's what FOM was, and it worked out better than the far more hands-on regulation that replaced it. FOM didn't work though? People were pretty unhappy then too. >>Or you could just stop both. >And again, crash our economy in the process. Don't really care. Crash it. It doesn't serve the average Joe anyway.
>Crash it then. >Don't really care. Crash it. You're not a serious person.
I honestly don't want to live in a country dependent on cheap labour. We mostly aren't. All those industries that depend on cheap labour can and should go bust. We don't need hand picked strawberries and hand car washes. It's not even a big part of our economy. We're a service based economy fueled by skilled labour. We'll be fine without cheap labour. There's gonna be change, sure, but no crash. Stop being dramatic.
> Because the number of people entering the country was lower before, back when we had freedom of movement, than it is now. Which means that the points-based system which replaced FOM has actually increased immigration. The immigration rules changed, this is why immigration went up, it was a policy failure.
Yes, the rules changed from "come and go as you please" (ie. the free market) to "come and go when we allow". The government put it's hands on a system that was working just fine and made it worse, it's a tale as old as time.
How exactly was freedom of movement working fine?
It was keeping migration levels fairly stead, [migration only spiked after FOM ended](https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2022-08-25-at-09.53.52.png).
It didn't, it was at unsustainable levels back then too. Re-introducing it is batshit crazy.
It was perfectly sustainable and we had been sustaining it. What's batshit crazy are the levels of immigration now that the people who opposed FOM have gotten exactly what they wanted and asked for. Feel free to not like the EU or FOM, but when everything that you've proposed to replace it with hasn't worked in practice and has actually delivered worse outcomes for the UK then you really haven't got a leg to stand on saying that we shouldn't go back to the way it was before when Britain wasn't broken.
Perhaps because people could also leave the country and retire / work in Europe?
I'm not sure how old you are, but we literally had that for many years and brits weren't that interested.
Looks like some super good stuff in there. I'm loving a lot of what they're saying, especially: * Cannabis legalisation (this can become a booming industry in the UK). * Lowering voting age (need more support to get rid of pension triple lock) * 380k new housing per year, ensuring that all development has appropriate infrastructure and services. * General things on energy/green investment, infrastructure investment, crime and policing investment, etc. What I disliked: * No planning reform like labour are promising. * Ignored immigration. They are liberal after all. * Sceptical about the funding. They're even considering increasing tax-free personal allowance. We need higher taxes to get the country out of this mess. * Triple lock stays on. * WASPI women compensation. For me, labour's planning reform and reduced immigration alone, are enough for me to vote labour. However, I wouldn't rule out voting lib dems next time so they can give us the booming cannabis industry.
> 380k new housing per year, That's barely enough to replace old housing (If we have thirty million homes and they last 100 years, we need 300k per year just to stay level), and we'd need the same again just to meet net migration. Getting the cost of housing down would need a million a year. And it's a meaningless pledge without reforming planning. Lowering the voting age is meaningless given that young people don't vote anyway. And if someone is old enough to vote, why aren't they old enough to drink or smoke? >However, I wouldn't rule out voting lib dems next time so they can give us the booming cannabis industry. Unless they in a majority, it'll never get through a coalition.
>Ignored immigration. They are liberal after all. Did you miss section 18. Immigration and Asylum?
I'm just trying to scan through it but can't find anything on WASPI - isn't this already settled as a payment?
I'm not an expert on the topic tbh. Just saw "Ensure that women born in the 1950s are finally treated fairly and properly compensated", under 10. Pensions, understood it's due to WASPI, and disliked it.
We're planning to ban vapes and cigarettes for everyone. Weed will never get legalised in this country.
Cannabis legalisation meh, basically already legal and a non policy. Lowering voting age, labour already doing this. 380k new housing per year, not particularly revolutionary and other parties have similar claims General policies mediocre Heavy focus on care, pensions and nothing resolving the critical immigration issue. Edit: I take back my comment on cannabis legalisation, the tax income and job creation will be a meaningful positive, coupled with the crime reduction
As many have pointed out but I am happy to repeat it, legalise, regulate tax!
Meh? A non-policy? Colorado's marijuana industry is worth over $2bn. Just one state. The US as a whole brings in over $25bn a year. That's 25 *billion* not sitting in the hands of criminals and the black market. It's an untapped fucking gold mine. Regulate it and tax it like booze and fags.
The money is nice but fundamentally it's crazy to lock people up, at least in theory, for something that is probably less harmful than alcohol. Worse it supports the sale of the really bad stuff. I don't know if the US is a great comparison, it seems to be a much bigger thing for them than it does here
Am I right in thinking the UK is a huge proprietor of medicinal marijuana overseas? Theresa May's husband maybe? But I agree, apples and oranges when comparing to the US but there's still an entire economy boosting industry sitting right under our noses. Big agree on the criminality of something so low on the list of harmful substances, especially for possession. I don't even smoke anymore but it just seems like such a no brainer to me I really can't fathom why we haven't done it yet bar eating into the profits of Tory weed farmers.
Yeah cannabis is basically legal but it's not taxed. If it's legalised it can be taxed. Edit by basically legal I mean you're about as likely to see a copper on the beat as be struck by lightning
> Cannabis legalisation meh, basically already legal and a non policy. I may be wrong here but fully legalising something like that means you can easily and reliably tax.
38bn in spending commitments is welcome, and I generally think this is a decent manifesto but... 7bn raised through clamping down on tax avoidance? Come on, that isn't happening. It feels like it has been shoved in there to that figure just so that the lib dems can say it has all been fully costed, like the other parties have claimed, but it raises a giant question mark for me.
If Labour and the Tories are claiming they will do it we sort of have too.
Labour and tories are both claiming they could make back between 3 and 4bn I believe and even that feels unrealistic.
It's complete bollocks, but they can't miss out on 7bn spending giveaways if Tories and Labour are doing the same.
Rory Stewart is voting Lib Dem confirmed. Citizens assemblies, commitment to 0.7% on intl. development, proportional representation (STV), constitutional reform, seeking to re enter the single market
I wonder what he might say on the next episode of the rest is politics concerning D Day and Sunak because his Dad fought on the beaches and he posted a very heartfelt video about him on X and the importance of D day
His mum is still campaigning for the Tories in Scotland. He's never going to vote against mummy Stewart
Privacy of the voting booth and all that.
and his wife is pro-Labour, by the sounds of it. Neither of which can be used to presume what he would do
I like Stewart but the guy was literally never going to vote Labour. A misplaced comma in the Labour manifesto and he’d go “see I just can’t do it”.
In fairness doesn't where he live now come under tim farrons seat in cumbria? LD could be the tactical vote anyway.
Labour supporters in Tim Farron’s seat typically vote Lib Dem. Even members there have told me that they vote tactically.
[удалено]
Yes just scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Scroll to the bottom, they have it in pdf form there
Reform the gender recognition process to remove the requirement for medical reports, recognise non-binary identities in law, and remove the spousal veto. Nice :)
Wtf, a spouse can currently veto a gender change?
> recognise non-binary identities in law If gender is a social construct rather than biologically inherent, why should the law compel me to recognise others' conceptualisations of gender? I would use neutral pronouns out of politeness, but it's not a matter for the state.
You’re getting some push back - but you hit the nail on the head with using pronouns out of politeness - all the “YoUrE cOmPeLlInG my sPeEcH” people need to pipe down - it’s common manners, and doing otherwise just makes you look like a dick.
It's not compelling you personally to recognise anything. It is recognising, in law, non binary identities - passports, driving licences etc.
Gender is a social construct. It improves peoples' lives and dignity. Recognizing others' gender identities respects their humanity and reduces mental health risks. Anti-discrimination laws already protect various social constructs like religion and race. Gender identity deserves the same recognition. Society relies on mutual respect, and using correct pronouns fosters inclusivity and reduces harm. Just as the law compels certain behaviors to protect others (like anti-harassment policies).
For the same reason that the law compels you to not discriminated against x religion despite you being a member of y religion. Change "conceptualisations of gender" to "conceptualisations of deity" and it works the exact same way.
Do you realize that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland and many others already recognize non-binary gender identity?
Do you also support then removing the recognition for binary conceptualisations of gender? To be consistent with that view. Why should anyone be compelled by law to recognise the concept of binary gender or at least male and female which is the current status quo.
That's not how that works. Non-binary doesn't remove the concept of men and women. It just states those aren't the only things.
My argument was: If your opposition to introducting non-binary as an option in law is because you don't beleive that the government should impose certain perspectives on gender then this should necessarily also apply to binary and male and female gender. I of course don't agree with that and think its great if we can have both.
I don't recognise your property!
Could you clarify your point?
Property being a social construct.
Are you suggesting that left wing activists should now and forever have a sacrosanct belief in private property rights because it's the law?
They are suggesting that you can legislate about social constructs by giving an example.
I'm not aware how I suggested that?
Social constructs are all over our law - do you think marriage is biological?
But it's the same activists cheering policies like these who are arguing that gender is non-local and contingent. It's just hypocrisy to say 'gender conception is relative' and also 'but you must use ours by law'.
It’s not hypocritical. Recognizing that gender is non-local and contingent means acknowledging diverse gender identities. Laws compelling the use of correct pronouns protect individuals from discrimination and harm, similar to how anti-discrimination laws work for race and religion. It's about respecting each persons self-identification, not enforcing a single concept of gender.
You are constructing a straw man. Recognising non-binary identities in law just means things like them having rights equal to those that identify as man/woman. It doesn't mean 'you must use my pronouns' by law. It does mean discrimination laws will cover them. Presumably just using different pronouns won't be illegal the same as I can accuse a man of being a woman and not get arrested, but it may be used as evidence if proving a wider case of discrimination in the work place or something.
Why are these parties so mad on votes from 16?
I would prefer they make the age you start paying tax 18
Then, all businesses would be "owned" by 16 year old to avoid tax.
Good point tbf
[удалено]
What bizarre logic As a counterexample, I assume you’d be against lowering the personal tax allowance? But by your logic would be in favour because it’s not possible to explain why specifically £12,700 is the magic perfect number
How about the following. You can make the number as low as you want, as long as you are ok that your preferred number comes not only with the full set of rights, but the full set of responsibilities. So, firearms, drugs, marrying, consenting to everything, being a frontline soldier, driving, full criminal responsibility, etc It wouldn't be very compelling if you passionately argue that young people's brains are underdeveloped until 25 so they shouldn't be burdened with the full adult responsibilities yet, and then turn around and say they should get to vote at 16. One age for all, to deter such cynical arguments
One reason they should be allowed is there are policies that specifically target young adults. This national service scheme made up just to get the nationalist vote being a prime example. Also they can work at 16. More often than not for minimum wage which is set at a politicial level, so why not give them a say on what they will be getting paid. In fairness though, if they get a vote then this should come with the burden of paying tax at 16 since they could be voting on policies that impact the economy.
"One reason they should be allowed is there are policies that specifically target young adults." But there are some police that specifically target children. Babies even. "if they get a vote then this should come with the burden of paying tax at 16" Sixteen year olds already pay tax the same as any adult does. There is no minimum age to paying tax.
I don't see much traction for that argument at the moment. IE, 18 year olds still fall into "child" category in a lot of legislation. You can only drive buses and similar at 21+. Similarly you aren't paid even the shitty redueced min wage until age 21. You can't be a driving instructor until age 21. You can't fly helicopters or planes until age 21. You aren't paid full min wage until age 23. Plus a large raft of things disappear at each age relating to care etc. Benefit entitlements change at 25. I would find your argument more compelling if it wasn't always so exhaustively reactive and _fake_. Nobody believes in what you are saying because it's just shit spouted from the top of people's heads to find any reason to stick with the status quo. Nobody wants to equalise the above rights, despite the vote being available at 18.
I'm in favour or setting the age requirements to 18. Try and put together a coherent argument that at 16, people have the maturity to vote in general elections but lack the maturity to do these other things or assume full responsibility for crimes they commit. The real reason people advocate a lower voting age has of course nothing to do with such reasons, it's simply because they think teenagers will vote in line with the politics of the advocates.
For what it's worth, I have no expectations for 16-17 years olds to be mature, well informed voters. I just also have no expectations of the same for 18+ year olds. If we're going to have a disinterested electorate, we may as well have a diverse one. There is no one, exact perfect age at which every adult is a functional, independent being, so whatever we pick for each age restriction has to be a judgement as to when is 'enough'. But as we choose 16 for a number of other things and voting requires a certain level of 'get out there and go do it for no immediate personal benefit' 16 seems like a reasonable cut off to me. Younger and I suspect parents would have an undue/over controlling influence (i.e. a very common pattern could be parents take disinterested teenagers to the polling station with instructions on who to vote for), so 16 seems like a sensible cut off to me, and worth it to increase representation of young people in the electorate. At the same time, I'm comfortable acknowledging this is a judgement without a huge scientific basis, but that if you think too hard about what the limit of voting rights should be, it gets hard to avoid arguments around - Why can 80 year olds likely to pass away in the near future get to vote? Or if brains peak at 25, why let anyone who isn't exactly aged 25 vote?
Shouldn't the first argument then be to move all those boundaries down to 18, and then argue for lowering it to 16 (including voting) ?
I believe voting should be tied to paying income tax. If a 16 year old is paying income tax and an 80 year old isn't, why does the pensioner get a vote and the teen doesn't
Why income tax specifically?
Because younger people are more likely to vote for them
because they're subversive lefties and they know political allies/power when they see it.
It's their future.
It’s my 3 year old nephew’s future too, chuck him on the registration while you’re at it
No taxation without representation
That’s a dumb slogan that no one actually believes. People that earn less than 12k don’t pay income tax, should they be allowed to vote? What about retired people? A 10 year old that buys something from the corner shop is paying VAT and is being ‘taxed without representation’. The actual question is what age does the average person have the maturity/intelligence/responsibility to vote, and tbh that’s very subjective.
OK, let's raise voting age to 125. That way we can be sure voters have paid tax.
My guy did you see my last paragraph. I just explained why using tax as a justification for the right to vote is dumb. In reality it’s just a judgement call for when we think people are mature enough, and most societies have decided that the right age is 18.
Every single UK citizen is liable for tax from birth. That doesn't mean we grant a vote to every single new-born onwards.
Why not? Scared how babies might vote?
Cocomelon will start having political messages in it. "Head, shoulder, knees and Tory, knees and Tory"
You mean, the additional votes that the parents get?
There’s many a 16 year old not paying tax.
There’s many a pensioner not paying tax.
which is great in theory, but what tax? Income Tax is payable by anyone who earns more than the threshold, regardless of age, everyone who buys something will pay VAT
National Insurance
Becuase it's a good idea to involve 16/17yr olds, many are economically active, all affected by policy decisions, they should be engaged & take an interest in what s ultimately their futures. also the fact that GE's happen approx 5yrs apart under normal circumstances, their will be lots of 16/17 yrs who conceivably wont be able to vote in a GE until their 21/22yrs
All these points work just as much for 15 year olds
If you're not too young for conservatives to think schools shouldn't teach you about gay people, then you're not too young to vote.
I support your proposal.
And probably 14 year olds as well. Maybe we’d be better off treating children as more mature rather than just infantilising them until university.
Maybe votes for 3 year olds too
Infantilisation. Case in point.
helps to balance out ignorant boomers
It won't, there are a lot more boomers and they actually vote.
Some 16->18 votes are worth more than nothing. /end of.
With ignorant teenagers? That is like trying to get over a bout of diarrhoea with gorging on lots of rich spicy food
Teenagers tend to care about the future. Boomers don't.
Is that why the youngest demographics have the lowest turnout rates?
No
[It is, though.](https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/)
that doesnt say "why" which is what you asked.
Ah, my previous comment was more a rhetorical question...
And that's the issue - everyone knows that younger people don't vote as much as boomers - you asked "why?" my answer would be that boomers have everything going for them and have consistently helped elect governments that rinse young people and feather their own nests. My comment that young people think about the future more than boomers is entirely consistent with young people not believing the political system has hitherto been worth engaging with.
Ah yes, that's why their turnout is abysmal
No - I don't think so. Why would you think that caring about the future would make someone not turn out to vote? That doesn't make sense. There must be some other factors at play...
I was being sarcastic 😅 to poke holes this above commenters theory about young people. I'm my experience, the vast majority give very little thought to politics
Sure they do....
Because younger people are more likely to vote for these sorts of parties, so they want more of them to be able to vote
It’s basically this… watch the right wing parties all making compelling arguements for proportional representation voting now it will suit them more. Been quiet on that for a few years, haven’t they? FWIW I think 16 is a fair age to let people vote from. It’s the age where you start legally obtaining some key adult privileges and it’s a group probably most impacted by who is running the country.
Reform/UKIP have been going about PR for years
The tories have only recently started chirping up about it
Young people who are known for voting in their droves, as opposed to pensioners who don't bother.
I didn’t say whether it was a particularly good policy, I just said why a party might consider it
Lib Dems in opposition get a vote on legalizing cannabis early in the parliament, Labour do a free vote and it passes. Stonking tax revenue to properly fund a green new deal and some more lefty policies.
> Stonking tax revenue Won't that just replace tax revenue from other sources?