For a Fair Deal - On the Liberal Democrats Manifesto

The Liberal Democrats are a liberal party, and the New Realist is a socialist publication. Naturally, the New Realist doesn't agree with the political economy of the Lib Dems. However, the socialism of the New Realist won't inform the critique of the manifesto - pragmatism will.

[Note: Unlike Labour, the Liberal Democrats are destined for opposition. The only interesting ambition for the Liberal Democrats is whether they can become the HM Opposition if the Conservative vote collapses as some MRP polls are showing. Consequently, the New Realist will only give an overall assessment of the key sections of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, barring unique policies that deserve special attention.]

The Economy

There are many similarities between Labour's and the Lib Dems' political economy. The Lib Dems pledge more spending commitments than Labour suggesting a looser fiscal policy. Ultimately, Labour and the Lib Dems have social liberally political economies modifying capitalism so that it has a human face.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats recognise the opportunity that tackling climate change poses for enhancing prosperity. The New Realist supports this wholeheartedly, welcoming investment in green infrastructure, while the national industrial strategy must centre on tackling climate change. Both are far more ambitious than the Conservatives, but that is not saying much. The scale of reform needed is vastly bigger than the ambitions of either party.

The only substantial difference between the Lib Dems and Labour, both in terms of the economy and foreign policy, is the renegotiation of our relationship with our European cousins. The details on what this entails are non-existent. Does it mean entering the European Free Tree Association (EFTA)? Does it mean rejoining the European Union? Does it mean introducing a bespoke Swiss-style agreement based on EFTA? Considering the substantial controversy over how to implement the 2016 referendum result, it's completely unacceptable not to detail what this means in an election manifesto. Re-entering the Single Market is presumably the intended aim, which the New Realist has no issue with, though substantial reforms to the Single Market are needed.

The reforms of statutory sick pay (SSP) proposed are welcome, especially aligning it with the national minimum wage (NMW). The New Realist believes sick employees should be paid the NMW so that sickness does not cause financial hardship. Likewise, shifting the burden of proof onto employers, rather than employees, in employment tribunals will help many workers achieve justice and help discourage poor behaviour in the workplace.

Climate Change and Energy

The Liberal Democrats commitment in achieving Net Zero by 2045 at the latest is a definite improvement on Labour's non-existent pledge. It is also five years ahead of what was agreed at the 2021 Paris Agreement. Even though it's slightly less ambitious than Labour's proposal, cutting carbon-generated electricity by 90% by 2030 is still an ambitious policy in line with achieving the Net Zero goal.

Other than that, though, there's not much distinguishing the Liberal Democrats' and Labour's polices. Both will accelerate the country towards what's needed, despite Labour not pledging a net-zero target, without going far enough in transforming our political economy and society.

Health and Social Care

The Liberal Democrats' offering on healthcare would definitely represent an improvement over the current state of affairs. Nevertheless, Labour's ambitions for the NHS are far superior, demonstrating a coordinated strategy for revitalising the NHS for the 21st century. Labour seeks a strategy moving to preventive healthcare, which is totally absent from the Liberal Democrats manifesto. The same applies for using AI technologies in assisting and accelerating the diagnostic process.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats only offer specific polices patching up key gaps within the NHS. It's the more technocratic of the two manifestos. For instance, there is no mention of treating mental health as being on equal footing with physical health, despite there being lots of policies that help tackle mental health. Some of these policies are the same as Labour's. The promise of free prescriptions for those dealing with mental health conditions is welcome.

The Liberal Democrats promise given everyone the right to see a GP in 7 days, or 24 hours if urgent. This is a headline policy and the main area where the Liberal Democrats are more ambitious than Labour. However, this is gesture politics. People have the right to not be discriminated against, yet discrimination exists all the time.

The Liberal Democrat's ambitions on care follow the same pattern. There is no National Carer Service (NCS) in the manifesto. In contrast the New Realist's initial thoughts about Labour's proposal was why wasn't both the NHS and NCS the same organisation, NHCS - the National Health and Care Service. Labour's plan for introducing collective bargaining into the NCS is better than the Liberal Democrats' offering.

Overall, there are lots of specific policies that vastly outnumber those of Labour. These policies are good and will modernise the NHS and care. Nevertheless, Labour's ambitions are holistic, representing a change in strategic direction for the NHS and care system, which is what we need ultimately. On health and social care, the New Realist would endorse Labour's manifesto over the Liberal Democrats', despite both being good.

Education

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have the same philosophy on education. The standout feature of this section is the tutoring guarantee for disadvantaged pupils and giving everyone a new "Lifelong Skills Grant" of £5,000 to spend on education. Tutoring the disadvantaged will immensely improve educational outcomes for the disadvantaged.

Whether university education and apprenticeship schemes are part of the Lifelong Skills Grant isn't made explicit. If they are, this is very disappointing. The Liberal Democrats propose putting a mental health professional in every school just like Labour does.

The Liberal Democrats' offering is just about as good as Labour's on this. The New Realist likes that investing in skills is centre-focus. However, the New Realist doubts that either manifesto will actually tackle the productivity problems facing the UK in the short-to-medium term. The tutoring guarantee gives a slight edge towards the Liberal Democrats' offering.

Poverty

The Liberal Democrats' pledges on poverty are overall very positive, with some blights in there as well. Ending the two-child limit and a specific target for ending deep poverty are magnificent polices which are a substantial improvement on Labour's offering. Roughly a quarter of million children will be taken out of poverty altogether, with another 850,000 in less deep poverty by the ending the two-child limit. Considering it would only cost £1.3 billion, it's incredibly disappointing that Labour didn't include the pledge in their manifesto.

Other policies which have attracted the New Realist's attention is establishing an Independent Living Taskforce, scrapping the bedroom tax, and moving the first payment of Universal Credit from 5 weeks to 5 days.

The Liberal Democrats' manifesto does disappoint, however, when it comes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Work Capability Assessments. Making PIP more transparent will help improve the application process making it easier for applicants to know how points are rewarded. However, the biggest problems lies with the scoring system itself, and the fact assessors don't apply the law, resulting in absurd and callous conclusions. Work Capability Assessments need scrapping, not reforming.

The pledge of ending rough sleeping is welcome, though Labour's pledge of ending homelessness altogether is much better.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats' pledges would positively impact the impoverished far greater than Labour's. It's only on eradicating homelessness altogether that Labour's plans are obviously superior to the Liberal Democrats'. The New Realist would endorse the Liberal Democrats' pledges above Labour's with reservation. It cannot escape the attention of the New Realist that it was the Liberal Democrats who introduced a lot of these policies in the first place, causing immense poverty.

Housing

The promise of building 380,000 new homes each year, including 150,000 social homes, is an improvement on Labour's pledges, which doesn't even address social housing. However, the number would still be a million short of what we need, assuming a 4 year Parliament, and 600,000+ short, assuming a full 5 year Parliament. Ending no fault evictions is in line with Labour policy. "Rent to buy" on social housing is a better model for encouraging home ownership than "Help to Buy".

Overall, the Liberal Democrats manifesto is either on par with, or a much better offering, than Labour without tackling the housing shortage facing this country. The Lib Dems have made their pledge on an annual basis, unlike Labour, so the length of the term determines the scope of their ambitions.

Constitutional Reform

The New Realist fully endorses the Liberal Democrats' proposals of electoral reform, introducing the single transferable vote; reforming the House of Lords with a democratic mandate; and including 16 to 17 year olds in the suffrage. Scrapping voter ID laws and enshrining the Ministerial Code into legislation are a stronger offering than Labour's. However, the New Realist believes that candidates should be educated in the role of an MP, and MPs should face audits ensuring better and more virtuous representation for constituencies by their representatives.

Foreign Policy

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are nigh on indistinguishable on foreign policy. The Liberal Democrats do propose some welcome policies absent from Labour's manifesto. The most welcome is the proscribing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and recognising the atrocities in Xinjiang against the Uighur's amounting to genocide. It's also fantastic seeing a pledge for increasing humanitarian aid in Sudan, though it is disappointing seeing no commitment for ending the cycle of civil wars and genocides that feature in the country. Building new partnerships based on economics and security with those threatened by China, particularly Taiwan, is welcome as well.

Conclusion

The Liberal Democrat' is mostly the same as Labour's when looking at the big picture. There's a lot more details in this manifesto, but don't let that fool you into thinking that the parties are substantially different. Only on the UK relationship with Europe, and constitutional reform is there substantial difference between the Lib Dems and Labour. The Lib Dems are substantially better on reducing poverty than Labour, but Labour's health strategy substantially outperforms the Lib Dems.

The country would be run much better under either the Liberal Democrats or Labour. The New Realist believes neither will solve the problem facing this nation.