I have read the Liberal Democrat manifesto and I bet they are kicking themselves that they haven't pledged to end the 'carrying of small dogs when they can clearly walk' or 'clapping when the plane lands'
There's nothing in the manifesto to make my blood boil; I can't really see that overall it would make anyone's blood boil, although inevitably there are bound to be things that any individual tends to disagree with.
I've even found I was mistaken on the one policy that I found attractive. I admit that this is down to my own stupidity and naivety. I thought that their pledge not to renew Trident was in fact a pledge to move towards unilateral nuclear disarmament. It turns out it's just a technicality; they do want Britain to continue having a supposed 'independent' nuclear deterrent. I don't. It matters to me, but isn't an issue that in itself would determine my voting behaviour. But I did ask myself - can I in all conscience not support a unilateralist party? Is there any issue that is so big that it trumps that in itself it trumps the overall balance of the Big Picture?
Problem over, the LibDems aren't planning on Ban The Bomb. I think even the Tories are multilateralists nowadays. The LibDems oppose the like-for-like replacement, but they word it suitably ambiguously to kid you into thinking that they would actually divert the nuclear budget to conventional weapons and equipment and civilian purposes - that's what I would do.But, it seems, not what they want.
Most other pledges cause a so-what reaction. It seems to be a disjointed reaction to a variety of unconnected grumbles, some of it blatant opportunism.
They pledge to make airlines reveal the actual full cost of tickets (rather than the base figure plus so-called 'optional extras' such as making the payment!). We all know it annoying, but for heaven's sake, we do have the opportunity to review the actual total before you click 'Pay' ; surely, by now everyone knows what the deal is. It doesn't stop us grumbling, but is this really the role of government? In any case, I'm sure Michael O'Leary would find a way - such as being based in a different sovereign nation, Ireland - to circumvent this. There are numerous other pledges of this nature, including some which I won't talk about for obvious reasons, where the reaction is - so what!
Many of the things they propose are already being done or at least in development, again, some in areas where I dare not speak. It seems pretty easy to promise to deliver something that is halfway complete. I fail to understand the point of some of their pledges. For example, to 'regulate CCTV' - what does this actually mean? CCTV is already regulated under the Data Protection Act. If they propose further measures, such as setting up a body to license all operators, or some appeal process, or what - it doesn't spell it out.
Some of their proposals are to scrap things - such as Home Improvement Packs - which I know little about, but were introduced to meet a recognised problem. There is nothing in there that proposes how they will address that pre-existing problem. It's not an area that interests me: I haven't moved house for years and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future, but it seems to be a headline-grabbing proposal with no substance.
I don't see any big picture or vision in this manifesto. It seems to be a lot of clutching at disparate 'good ideas', each of which could achieve a broad consensus. I suppose they wrote this in a frame of mind of being the ultimate pressure group, and good luck to them, but it's not really a manifesto for government!
A large number of people have flagged up the contrast between the promises made by the LibDems locally and their performance in local councils. I know certainly in Lambeth, their record in coalition with the Tories between 2002 and 2006, that the people of Lambeth voted for a majority Labour Council against the trend of national voting where there was a massive anti-Labour swing - some of it opposition to the Iraq War, which isn't a local government responsibility. I have read that Social Care for the Elderly is in dire straits in Sheffield. I know that locally the LibDems opposed new secondary schools for Brixton; indeed, have a tendency to oppose anything that spells progress. There us a rumour that they are planning again for coalition with the Tories and intend to close the Sure Start Children's Centres*.
There are a few things said by leading Liberal Democrat politicians recently. One is this stupid slogan Clegg keeps using of not being an 'old party'. One can split hairs and point out that the actual legal entity of the Liberal Democrats was formed in 1988; this was as the Social and Liberal Democrats, a merger of the previously allied Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party. The Liberal Party came about after the Great Reform Act out of the Whigs and Radicals. So it's disingenuous verging on the dishonest to persist with this.
Similarly dishonest is the attempt to portray Clegg as some political outsider who had an ordinary normal job before he went into politics. I rushed to his biography to read about his days down the mine followed by his nights as a trawlerman and his sabbatical as a teacher of special needs. But no, it turns out he did a political wonk job and worked for a lobbying company. He did also work as a journalist, and I will concede not one dependent on the Westminster rumour mill. But, really, I don't think the majority of people would really consider that as being a 'normal'. And if the normal jobs include his gap year jobs, then that's really pathetic.
What has annoyed me profoundly is the suggestion that the last 65 years of British history has been a failure. That is outrageous. My life is very different now than if I had been born in 1903, and thus my current age in 1945. I wouldn't have gone to University, probably wouldn't have been able to pursue a career, would certainly not be able to get a mortgage to buy a house in my own name. I am very proud of the National Health Service. I am proud that life expectancy has risen and neo-natal and maternal mortality has fallen.
I am proud that in the last 65 years we have abolished judicial murder and legalised homosexual acts, to the point where discrimination against lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals (and also transgendered people who tend to get lumped in with LGB) is illegal, as is sexual and racial discrimination and that based on disability. I can think of few areas of British life that, however flawed it is now, isn't a massive improvement on how it was in 1945. A lot of this is down to Labour Governments, much of it is merely in keeping with similar developments throughout the Western world, and some of it did happen as a result of action under the Conservatives, too (it's kind of like naming ten famous Belgians, if you screw your eyes up and think hard you can probably name ten decent Tory initiatives).
I am also incredibly bored of the bandwagon-jumping commentarati repeatedly portraying the Liberal Democrats as 'left of centre'. I suppose it all boils down to whether you consider Ken Clarke, say, to be centrist. The official LibDem national/Parliamentary policy ticks all the right boxes on any number of touchstone issues. My concern is more about the 'Orange Book' economic liberals and their support for free market economics.
*That having been said, I don't think that the 'competence' of often bumbling amateurs (of any party) is an indicator of the competence of full-time national politicians; I also think that with the LibDems, who have a track record of saying anything they think will get them elected, specific policies in any given area are no guide to what they'd do elsewhere
