This Thursday, polling stations across the country will be filled with the voting electorate. For weeks now, the British public has been bombarded with sound-bites and video clips of politicians eager to please. Despite the continuous stream of statistics and data that we have been subjected to, no one can truly claim to be able to know what awaits us at the outcome of the General Election. However, one aspect is clear: the Liberal Democrats will command far more of the popular vote than ever before. Even so, their rise in popularity has not been met with a similar degree of scrutiny of its policies: far too much of it has gone on Nick Clegg as a leader.

In Oxford East, the constituency encompassing the University of Oxford, the election is a two-horse race. The incumbent labour MP, Andrew Smith, is challenged by the Liberal Democrats’ parliamentary candidate: Steve Goddard. Since 2001, Dr Goddard, a university lecturer, has whittled Andrew Smith’s majority down to less than one thousand and with the recent rise in popularity of the Lib Dems, Steve’s chances of getting elected seem very favourable. In light of this, I took the opportunity to meet him and question him on a number of his party’s policies.

Dr Goddard’s beliefs run firmly in line with those featuring in the party’s manifesto, a copy of which sat between us. His answers too were couched in the rhetoric of Nick Clegg, using on a number of occasions the very same phrases which the popular leader has spoken on television. Despite Dr Goddard appearing as someone who would make a fantastic constituency MP, I am still not convinced by the Liberal Democrats’ pretension to be a party that is able to govern the country. In numerous policy areas their short manifesto ideas seems frankly weak and poorly thought through.

Too flighty by half?

The party’s stance on Europe, for instance, seems to be based far more on their historic love of the European Union than any practical economic analysis. The manifesto states clearly, ‘it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the Euro.’ It doesn’t explain why though - and since few believe that the Euro can offer any real benefits until all the European countries that use it are as strong economically as Germany (which is somewhat unlikely), the Lib Dems seem to be very much on the wrong side of professional opinion on this matter.

On the question of nuclear power too, the Liberal Democrats differ to the other major parties by ruling out its use as a fuel for the future.

As the supply of energy is put under increasing stress rejecting a low carbon energy source at this stage seems to make little sense. After all, their plan to see Britain’s power supply by 2050 sourced entirely from renewables is based on the fact that it will be ‘underpinned by guaranteed price support.’ Of course, nuclear energy is heavily subsidised as well, yet the costs of installing and maintaining greener methods to produce a similar amount are much higher. Furthermore, the energy regulator, OfGem, is forecasting that without an increased capacity in the next few years the country’s demand will exceed supply by 2015.

Other aspects of the Liberal Democrats’ proposals seem unworkable within the context of Britain’s economic situation. The ‘C’ word – cuts - is mentioned mostly from the perspective of class sizes or taxes - not on public spending - something that everybody knows must fall to have any chance at reducing the deficit and safeguarding Britain’s AAA rating. Included in their spending proposals is that of scrapping ‘unfair’ tuition fees, so that anyone can go to university ‘regardless of their parents’ income.’ This policy, to be factored in over a period of six years, seems to go against the fact that all major universities are undergoing problems with funding. Some do not even feel that the current tuition fee is high enough: the Chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Patten, made it perfectly clear earlier in the year that limiting the tuition fee to just over £3200 was ‘preposterous.’ Though the Lib Dems agree to abolish Labour’s aim for 50% of young people to attend university, they don’t suggest an alternative figure. This is added to the fact that tuition fees are paid for by the student loan company, irrespective of whether you are from a rich or poor background, making their decision to mention ‘parents’ income’ in relation to them meaningless . The policy itself seems to be aimed at tempting the youngest voters to vote Lib Dem rather than giving the opportunity of a university degree to more people. After all, in spite of Labour’s introduction of tuition fees there has been a huge increase in the numbers of young people attending university during their time in government. It is hardly surprising that the OxStu’s survey of Oxford’s university students produced the headline ‘We’re all Lib Dems now’ – a lot of their popularity amongst student surely rests on the fact that the Lib Dems want to reduce the costs of going to university for them, even if it means increasing it for the taxpayer.

It is in this area that experience in finance and a model for transforming the system is clearly lacking. The party’s policies are far too simplistic and do not seem to show any awareness of the complexity of such a task. Their focus seems to be aimed at breaking up the banks, in order to separate ‘low risk’ retail banking from ‘high risk’ investment banking. They seem to assume that the smaller the bank, the lower the risk it has in its structure and, in doing so, the manifesto does not take into account the fact that small banks, like Northern Rock or Bradford & Bingley, were just as badly exposed to the effects of the ‘credit crunch’ and just as much in need of government assistance than those with much larger balance sheets.

Moreover, the manifesto includes vacuous statements, such as ‘getting the banks lending responsibly again’, apparently by insisting that banks lend more to businesses. Whilst the need to improve credit liquidity is clear, pursuing a policy of increasing bank lending without showing any understanding that the credit crunch’s foundation rests on too much risky lending does not elicit much in the way of confidence in their policies. Their populist stance on attacking the bankers is understandable but hardly constructive, and their attitude to financial reform seems to have been thought up without any reference to the views of the city.

The party’s desire to distance the country from the ‘financial gambling’ of the city is also reflected in a completely absurd policy concerning the establishment of regional stock exchanges, which to me reflects the party’s principle of producing regional policies rather than providing a well thought through method of getting the economy going again. The rationale behind this move is to allow businesses to access equity without the heavy regulatory requirements of a London listing. But the regulatory requirements which are in place for listing on AIM or the FTSE are there for a reason: to allow investors to see what they are putting their money into.

Besides, there seems to be little appeal for this proposal since the great majority of private and public companies exist perfectly without being listed on the London Stock Exchange; this can be seen from the fact that only a tiny proportion of the country’s registered companies pursue a London listing.

These areas aren’t the only ideas that suggest a real weakness in the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats. Some, like their tax plans that seemingly cut taxes for those of middle incomes but do little for those most in need, have already been dealt with by Lincoln Hill’s article on this website. Others, like their immigration plans and their concentration on green issues have been the subject of much scrutiny on television. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the Liberal Democrats are not a party whose policies will realistically address the issues that are most important for this country.

The Lib Dem’s polling success has emerged as a result of Nick Clegg’s success in theLeaders’ debates, and his ability to play the two main parties off one another. This article was not written with any specific party agenda but rather to scrutinise the manifesto of a party that is, according to the polls, expected to receive the second highest amount of popular votes. You should not vote for a Liberal Democrat on 6th May just because they profess to be the clearest embodiment of change. The liberal Democrats certainly would have a huge impact on the way in which politics is carried out through changing the electoral system; but what they propose for tackling social issues, immigration, the economy or reducing the deficit is hardly convincing.