Are the Lib Dems' policies really credible?

Kohoutek

lynzpower wrote: »

Can you tell me where it says this in the manifesto, which page

Sorry someone told me that the reason they were voting for the Lib Dems was specifically because they were raising the minimum wage to that level, they appear to have got it wrong.

However, they are still proposing to abolish the different levels of the minimum wage for under 22s (pg 51) - I think that's a big mistake, in many cases employers will just choose to employ fewer young people, especially people as young as 16 year if that's the case.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

It is a good point that the LibDems have at least broadly thrashed out some figures for voters to argue over, as we are doing. You cannot please everyone all the time, and certain policies are going to hurt some- at the (theoretical) benefit of all. As in Kahoutek's example above, employers may feel the pinch at the expense of encouraging young people into work.

The LibDems have always opposed the pointless farce of the national ID card scheme, and for that alone they get my vote.

lynzpower

Kohoutek wrote: »

Sorry someone told me that the reason they were voting for the Lib Dems was specifically because they were raising the minimum wage to that level, they appear to have got it wrong.

However, they are still proposing to abolish the different levels of the minimum wage for under 22s (pg 51) - I think that's a big mistake, in many cases employers will just choose to employ fewer young people, especially people as young as 16 year if that's the case.

Somebody told you? Or did you pick up from this page where txtspeekin seems to have taken over the need to sit down like an adult and actually read through the manifestos.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/-The-UK-Conservative-Party-/252665261326

The 8.10 an hour is proposed by the Green party.

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/channel/news/article/998254/General-Election-2010-Green-Party-proposes-National-Minimum-Wage-810-per-hour/
The Green Party has proposed a 40% increase in the National Minimum Wage, meaning it would rise to £8.10 per hour if they win the General Election.
Green Party leader Caroline Lucas also said her party would create up to one million new jobs through investing £44 billion in green industries.

Did you even google 8.10 an hour+minimum wage to see if it was true? As this is the 1st report that comes up.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But if you don't think he can do it and he messes it up further and costs you loads in tax etc.

It is a bit like saying "I don't mind a red hot poker up my ar@s as long as I did not put it there myself".:)

Some people may not know what the outcome would be if liberal did not get a majority GD. So can't really see a problem with people pointing out what could happen if liberal did not get a sizable majority TBH.

In my opinion, I will have voted for change.

If that get's more of the same, at least in my mind I know I have done my bit to try and change the way things work at the moment. If enough people join me, we may just get the change most of us seem to want.

In response to the Gordon bit, I never said he couldn't do it. I believe Gordon will do exactly what Cameron would anyway. It's just I would rather see Gordon and the labour party take the flack this time, rather than the tories take the flack.

BigJonnyB

Removing the minimum wage age thresholds makes complete sense. It is contradictory that a government introduced a law to specifically target age discrimination, but then set age ranges for the minimum wage.

Young people do exactly the same work as their elder counterparts, but it's okay to pay them less? If an employer decides to pay extra for experience or suchlike, then fair enough. But the law is really just encouraging 'cheap' labour for a particualr section of society.

My inlaws own a pub where most of the staff are young - and they pay them according to the job they are doing, not their age. This proposed change wouldn't make any difference to them - but would to those who just want the cheapest possible labour to maximise their profits.

StevieJ

BigJonnyB wrote: »

Removing the minimum wage age thresholds makes complete sense. It is contradictory that a government introduced a law to specifically target age discrimination, but then set age ranges for the minimum wage.

Young people do exactly the same work as their elder counterparts, but it's okay to pay them less? If an employer decides to pay extra for experience or suchlike, then fair enough. But the law is really just encouraging 'cheap' labour for a particualr section of society.

My inlaws own a pub where most of the staff are young - and they pay them according to the job they are doing, not their age. This proposed change wouldn't make any difference to them - but would to those who just want the cheapest possible labour to maximise their profits.

A lower minimum wage may encourage an employer to give an untried youngster a chance as this is where the highest numbers of unemployed are. I think the differential is there for the best of intentions, rightly or wrongly.

barrymoney

The libdems energy policy stands out as an aspirational idea that I wouldnt want to actually try out in the real world… i.e. I quite like having my electricity 24 hours a day. But aside from that I am ok with most lib dem ideas (yes, even the euro).

I was thinking that voting libdem = get Brown, but as someone commented above, forcing Brown to sit in his own mess for a bit, whilst coming 3rd in the polls, would be some kind of spectacle in itself.

Sorry, bit cynical today Good to see policy discussions though.

chewmylegoff

of course their policies are not credible. their manifesto was not designed to be a credible framework within which they anticipated governing. their strategy is just to try to increase their representation in parliament by saying a few things which people think are sensible, and hoping to pick up a few more votes on the basis that a lot of people hate GB, but can't bring themselves to vote tory.

in my view the lib dems are not fit to govern. they don't even have enough people with parlimentary experience to fill all the necessary ministerial positions. i can only name 4 lib dem politicians, one of whom is a drunk, and i expect that is well above average. they always roll out the same handful of people because they have noone else credible to present to the press/electorate.

their policies are a joke. only a lunatic party would propose the changes they have to the income tax system they have at a time when there is an enormous budget deficit. worse still they want to make the pensions crisis worse by halving tax relief for all higher rate tax payers in order to give an immediate tax cuts to the lower paid. i could entertain this as a reasonable short term policy to help reduce the deficit, but that is not what this is - it is woefully short-sighted electioneering. furthermore i'm disappointed that they seem to think that anyone paying 40% tax is massively rich and should be hammered with additional taxation.

not that i think either of the other two parties is particularly fit to govern either, mind.

System

The lib dems have had the benefit for years of being able to say all the right things knowing they'll never need to actually to action them. Now all of a sudden their nice proposals are being looked at in a bit of detail and it's apparent they don't stack up.

BigJonnyB

so they say anything they want as they know that they'll never have to do anything. They're in a completely no win situation with that logic. Best stick to tories and labour for the next 100 years...yay!