What the manifestos say: Liberal Democrats

Posted Wednesday, 28th April, 2010 by Andrew Davis
Share this

One of the advantages that the Liberal Democrats have had in recent years is that they were not seen as the party of the next government. Therefore they had the luxury of knowing that they would not have to make the difficult decisions that being in government bring.

So this manifesto was written without those choices in mind. However, in terms of sustainability of their transport policy, although far behind the Green party, the Liberal Democrats have put together a credible shift in the way we do things.

Given that, at present it looks as if the Liberal Democratic will form the next government their manifesto is well worth a read. Indeed, whatever you think of their policies, I think you’ll agree that their website manifesto format is way better than any of their rivals.

There are clearly policies which relate more to their MPs coming from the more remote parts of Britain.

Liberal Democrat Manifesto My comments
General. We will provide public transport you can rely on. Britain needs a well-run, efficient transport system. Public transport is an important part of a fair society and the best way to cut carbon emissions from transport without trying to limit people’s opportunities to travel. We want to improve the experience for the traveller and cut carbon emissions. Nice idea but most travel – either by number of journeys or by distance is done by walking, cycling and driving. If public transport is the answer then the Libdems are asking the wrong question. Good public transport is important but the answer lies more in pleasant environments to walk, safe cycling and carbon –free cars.
Walking. Increase the general right of access to the countryside, along the lines of the model introduced by the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. Only the Libdems mentioned the right to roam.
Cycling. Include the promotion of safer cycling and pedestrian routes in all local transport plans. A bit too directive. Although, I would like every locality to have walking and cycling at the centre of their transport plans, I think the national government should simply limit itself to ensuring road users can understand the signage and offer examples of good practice.
Cars. A fair deal for motorists – our planned expansion of public transport will provide much-needed alternatives to private cars, and cut carbon emissions. However, in many places there will always be a need for car travel, so we need to ensure that it is as environmentally friendly as possible. Hope before experience.
Cars. Work through the European Union for a zero emissions target for all new cars by 2040 and extend targets to other vehicles. I expect that this intended target is at the point of use – zero emissions from well to wheel would be harder.
Cars. Regulate the parking system to remove unfairness and stop private sector wheel-clamping. I do not know what they mean by regulate the parking system – they could do with a bit more detail. I would regulate private clamping but not outlaw it.
Freight. I could not find a specific mention of freight in the manifesto.
Road Congestion. Undertake preparations for the introduction of a system of road pricing in a second parliament. Any such system would be revenue neutral for motorists, with revenue from cars used to abolish Vehicle Excise Duty and reduce fuel duty, helping those in rural areas who have no alternatives to road travel. Some of the revenue from lorries would be used to fund further extensions of high speed rail through the British Infrastructure Bank. The Libdems have the guts to take the bull by the horns – no transport policy, in a country such as ours; can work without a road pricing system. The devil is in the detail. As far as possible the charge should be value free. In other words charges should be backed up by science, rigorously derived from extensive research and openly published. Costs should relate to road damage, noise, congestion, pollution run-off but not climate change – that is better dealt with via a carbon tax. I am saddened that they have not gone for this parliament – there is no time like the present.
Roadworks. No mention – despite the millions of potholes.
Travel Concessions. No mention. Maybe the Libdems are happy with the status quo and feel that there is no pressure for change.
Buses. Give councils greater powers to regulate bus services according to community needs so that local people get a real say over routes and fares. This is good – change the law so that counties can regulate the buses (or even run them if they like)– just like London does
Buses. Invest £140 million in a bus scrappage scheme that helps bus companies to replace old polluting buses with new low-carbon ones and creates jobs. Only the Greens and Libdems mention removing carbon for the bus system. Although the Libdems appear to want to spend more money on it.
Rail. We will switch traffic from road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads budget. There does not appear to be a strategy for rail here. Are we to provide rail links between all towns of greater than 200,000? Or over 100,000? People might want their old local line opened (and there might be a case for it.) but the national government should concentrate on the national rail network. I am not sure how cost effective this is in protecting the economy or in the environment – not many people travel by train. We might end up spending precious resources unwisely.
Rail. Cut rail fares, changing the contracts with Train Operating Companies so that regulated fares fall behind inflation by 1 per cent each year, meaning a real-terms cut. Britain has a severe problem relating to rail. Most rail journeys involve London; most rail congestion is in London and the south east of England. Keeping the fares low in the south east, when the trains are full, can starve the network of much needed investment.
Rail. Make Network Rail refund a third of your ticket price if you have to take a rail replacement bus service. Seems a good idea to me.
Rail. Overhaul Network Rail to put the interests of passengers first and bring it under the Freedom of Information Act to make it more open. I wish you luck.
Rail. Set up a British Infrastructure Bank to invest in public transport like high speed rail. Financing the high speed rail network needs to be considered separately because they are concerns that high speed rail could suck investment form local rail.
Waterways. I could not find anything on waterways.
Air. Cancel plans for the third runway at Heathrow and any expansion of other airports in the south east. Heathrow operates at more than full capacity because the government has failed to properly price the phenomenal valuable landing slots available. Heathrow should operate at 80% capacity – a similar rate as other airports – to make the experience of using the airport more pleasant and to reduce the environmental damage caused when aircraft stack waiting to land. Pricing access to Heathrow (which is a benefit of a monopoly so should not go to the airport operator) at market rates will ensure that only those who really need to use Heathrow will use it.
Air. Restricting aviation growth The emissions from rising aviation are a serious problem in the fight against climate change. But in some more remote parts of the country, flights are a vital lifeline, and aviation is important for the economy as a whole. Liberal Democrats believe that we should do all we can to ensure people use alternatives where that makes sense. I do not think that aviation should be restricted but instead noise and climate change effects should be reduced.
Air. Require airlines to be honest and upfront about pricing, ending the practice of adding hidden charges. No other party mentions this good idea.
Land-use Planning. Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return decision making, including housing targets, to local people. We will create a third-party right of appeal in cases where planning decisions go against locally agreed plans. Up to a point. No locality can hold the rest of the country to ransom when networks (cable, rail, road or pipeline) require access. But single developments, for example, incinerators or power stations would have to find a locality which would give planning permission.
Land-use Planning. Require a local competition test for all planning applications for new retail developments and establish a local competition office within the Office of Fair Trading to investigate anti-competitive practices at a local and regional level. • I am not sure about the first idea but the second would be worth pursuing. Large supermarkets have the economic power to dump on all other shops in a locality until they all disappear.
Land-use Planning. Close loopholes that allow playing fields to be sold or built upon without going through the normal planning procedures. Totally agree. Too many short term decisions have been taken by those who run schools about their location. No land should be built on that is beyond 800m from a town centre (unless suitable other land is made available).
Land-use Planning. Give local authorities the power to set higher Council Tax rates for second homes and the option to require specific planning permission for new second homes, in areas where the number of such homes is threatening the viability of a community. Land is so important; unfortunately under European law land ownership in a locality cannot be limited to those who live there. The next best thing is a tax on non-primary residential property.
Taxes. Introduce a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas. In think this is a scam created by rural MPs.
Taxes. Replace the per-passenger Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty (PPD), so capturing freight movements by air for the first time. This is very sensible – in other words I agree with it. This would begin to reflect the true cost of air travel. I would prefer to use a carbon tax instead but we come up against international (American) law.
Taxes. Introduce an additional, higher rate of PPD on domestic flights for which alternative and less polluting travel is readily available. Naughty. People also have the choice of not travelling. Climate change mitigation should be, in my view, as value neutral as possible.
Taxes. Protect greenfield land and our built heritage by reducing the cost of repairs. We will equalise VAT on new build and repair on an overall revenue-neutral basis. This will also help to reduce the costs of repairs to historic buildings. This is the wrong way around. VAT should be put on new housing not VAT taken off repairs. Governments spend too much time fiddling with taxes. Taxes should be simple to understand, purposeful, sensitive to consequences and easy to collect. This just makes life more complicated.
Taxes. Reform local taxation. The Council Tax is an unfair tax. Liberal Democrats believe that it should be scrapped and replaced with a fair local tax, based on people’s ability to pay. It is necessary to pilot local income tax to resolve any practical issues of implementation before it can be rolled out nationally, so we would invite councils to put themselves forward to be involved in the piloting phase in the second year of a parliament. • Council tax is, of course, unfair in a number of ways. Indeed the whole local government funding is in a mess. It needs urgent review. Local government should be able to raise taxes in a number of ways – which could include a built property tax (Council tax) or not as the locality decides. A land value tax would make a valuable contribution and would a local income tax. However, the variability of wealth of localities would mean that there would need to be an equalization mechanism between the richer and poorer localities.
Taxes. Return business rates to councils and base them on site values, as a first step towards the radical decentralisation of taxation and spending powers to local people. This is a very good idea. Land is a precious resource economically and also provides a bedrock to a good life. Using it wisely greats a better society.
Local government. Make local government more accountable and responsive to local people by introducing fair votes for local elections in England. “Fair” is a bit woolly. I firmly agree that English local government elections must be via the single referable vote. Northern Ireland had STV reintroduced in 1973, the Scottish government introduced STV for local government, the Welsh government attempted to introduce STV in 2005 but it was vetoed by the British government. STV allows for a much more vibrant local government.
Local Government. Review local government finance completely as part of these tax changes, including reviewing the unfair Housing Revenue Account system and the mainstreaming of central grants. Give people a say in policing and the NHS with elected police authorities and health boards. Scrap nearly £1 billion of central government inspection regimes on local councils. • Scrap the Government Offices for the Regions and regional ministers. • Sovereignty belongs to the people. If people pool part of their sovereignty for the common good then outside of the economy people look to their locality. Therefore I would say that local government may do what it likes as long as it does not affect the wider society.
Local Government. Address the status of England within a federal Britain, through the Constitutional Convention set up to draft a written constitution for Britain as a whole. The problem of England lacking a government of its own is becoming more serious as the other parts of Britain gain more self government while England does not. It is a difficult conundrum to solve. If England is not regionalized but governed as a single entity I think Britain, as we know it, would break up relatively quickly.
Next article: What the manifestos say: Conservative Party (Thursday, 29th April, 2010)
Previous article: What the manifestos say: Labour Party (Wednesday, 28th April, 2010)