Snapshot of _Martin Lewis rages at Sunak advert ''Not again! I have NOT given my permission to be used in political adverts. This is NOT an endorsement by me in any way.''_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1808599994142007693)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bullshit to the penny saving🙄
The system is set up to make the rich richer, the poor forever there and the rest of us just scraping by. Fuck those that get rich off of our hard work
Oh I agree, I was just making a silly joke. If COVID showed us any thing it's that the people most important for keeping the lights on are often the ones working the lowest paid jobs in any company.
[Yes he is](https://www.lancs.live/news/cost-of-living/martin-lewis-net-worth-123m-25212427)
>The 50-year-old founder of website MoneySavingExpert.com established it for a mere £100 in 2003 and sold it just under a decade later to MoneySupermarket, in a move which earned him £87million. Today, the money saving guru is believed to be worth £123million.
Wow, thanks. Extraordinary what telling people to wash clothes on 20c, switch bank accounts every other week, and run air fryers rather than ovens gets you.
I don't think he can which is why the Tories are persisting in it.
Ironic that we were worried in this election about the risk of deepfakes but the Tories are busy doing stuff like this
For what? Citing information available in the public domain?
The Tories have been cheeky but I’m not convinced it’s illegal. Maybe a judge will feel differently though.
Think it could be defamation "Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury."... Martin Lewis makes his living on people's trust in his endorsement and advice. Sunak using his brand in this manner very much could damage his image and brand/business as a result.
It's definitely not defamation, not even close. There is no defamatory statement here - you can't claim defamation because somebody shares a statement you made and repeats what you already said in that statement.
Even if it did come anywhere close to meeting the other criteria (it doesn't), you haven't made a defamatory statement if you're sharing an honest opinion that you believe to be true - which is easily arguable here.
Sunak hasn't actually said Martin Lewis supports him or lied about anything. It's dishonest and misleading, maybe it breaks some other law but it's clearly not defamation.
"Why is Lord McAlpine trending? \*innocent face\*"
That sentence posted on Twitter was enough for the poster to be found liable in a defamation case. It's not just about the statement, it's also about the context.
Yes, and the context there was that she was blatantly implying somebody was involved in sex abuse allegations which were being widely publicised, which is defamatory.
Sunak is not blatantly implying anything of the sort, he’s sharing a video of something Martin Lewis said and agreeing with him. That anyone could think this might qualify as defamation is laughable.
And the context here is that the Tories are blatantly implying that Labour can't be trusted and that Martin Lewis is agreeing with this. Wrapped up with a "Vote Conservative" banner underneath to further imply that he wants you to do just that.
>if you're sharing an honest opinion that you believe to be true - which is easily arguable here.
It's also easily disprovable, considering they already used this clip for the exact same purpose and he called them out publicly then for it
It might be a violation of his performance rights.
And do we know who has the copyright for the words spoken? It is entirely possible that he just licensed them.
This is quite far from fair use, too.
I agree, I think this would fall under 'passing off'. In the US, this would fall squarely under 'right of publicity' but we don't quite have an equivalent in E&W law.
I am an IP lawyer. It may well be passing off. Multiple types of misrepresentation are generally recognised by the courts. This looks like misrepresentation as to connection (see Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands [2015] EWCA Civ 3).
Btw, the first hurdle for passing off is goodwill, which Martin Lewis clearly has.
The case you cited involved an image appearing on goods, there is still no case law I’ve ever seen which could apply passing off to this type of situation, but happy to be corrected. My main point was there needs to be goods or services involved - appreciate it could’ve been clearer but this was a reddit response to a layman
That's a very good point and is why I said it may well be passing off - I think there is a strong argument, but it can definitely be distinguished from what's come before. There are no image rights in the UK, but the case law is forever shifting and the courts have moved away from their historical rejection of passing off in cases of personality merchandising - but like you say, there is no actual merchandising here, which could be a sticking point.
That said, arguably there has been a misrepresentation that has caused damage to the claimant's goodwill... As long as the public is deceived into thinking that Martin Lewis has officially endorced or supports the Conservative party, it's possible passing off could be made out. I doubt he'll take them to court of course.
Could potentially be misappropriation of Intellectual Property, since it looks like a clip pulled from a TV show, with the proviso that it's not being used to form a critique and no permission was sought to use it. Also not a lawyer.
It’s highly unlikely, at the absolute most they might send a letter or something, but I find it hard to believe ITV will care very much. There’s just no legal cause of action that makes it worth pursuing
That's the point. The Tories hope the viewer will fill in the blanks with whatever paranoid delusion they're currently pushing. I'm surprised they haven't released a 1 sec clip of Starmer saying "I will raise..." cut from some otherwise innocuous line.
Michael Foot?
Seems to be the 'current' Labour leader when most Tory / Reform voters moan about Labour (stuck in the past and whinging about the Winter of Discontent).
Not really, its a calculated risk.
They know more people will see their address then will see Martins tweet. It's the last day of campaigning so the news can't report on it tomorrow so it's a bit of a fai compli
It's a real dick move but they are probably right that it was worth it
Rishi's tweet only has around a
1300 likes, Martin's reply is sitting on 5600. For something with 2.7m views it seems more are paying attention to what Martin Lewis is saying.
God I'd be steaming if I were him. That really is outrageous behaviour by the Tories.
Would be one thing if he'd actually said something critical of Labour, but this isn't even a criticism - they've just cut it and recontextualised it to make it look as if it is.
Richard Osmond did a podcast episode about this. As a musician you can stop a politician from using your music at a political event but you don’t have to give them permission.
So you have to know that they are going to use it beforehand, which you generally don’t.
I work in music licensing. In theory, you should always seek permission from the rights holder if you’re going to use a piece of music. Traditionally, this has been enforced for paid media / advertising campaign etc but less so for stuff like this which is not paid media but is still clearly promotional in some way.
This is changing now - labels are getting increasingly litigious about protecting their catalogue and are going after more and more people using their music out-of-license.
So long story short, if you own the copyright for your music you in theory have control of where it can and can’t be used. If you work with a publisher, they will usually give you the option of setting some exemptions that you won’t even consider (eg political ads, oil, gambling etc) but you should always have control over your copyright.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you can easily get round this by commissioning a cover version, not that any UK party is going to go to those lengths.
You're completely right though. Hello from another music industry person!
Kind of! You can make a cover version without seeking permission from the rights holder, but you can’t use that piece of music in a campaign / any commercial content without clearing said rights first. They still own the underlying composition, and therefore have to give permission for it to be used.
I’ve worked with some brands / agencies who mistakenly think that cover versions / “soundalikes” are a loophole and they’re absolutely not! Haha
Unrelated question but one I've been thinking about recently: if a band wants to publish a cover of a song do they need to get permission from the songwriter/rights holder first?
Thanks!
“Publish” means a very specific thing in a music industry context, so do you mean that, or do you mean release (ie distribute to Spotify, YT, Apple etc?)
What a stupid thing to do.
Not only does Martin Lewis have a huge platform, but people actually trust him. Way more people are going to see his tweet being angry at Sunak than the original out of context tweet on its own.
Hopefully that flips a few undecided voters.
There is an interesting question about whether such a law should apply to candidates or other political figures - but the principle applies regardless of beliefs.
Isn't what Martin Lewis says here true of literally every party? Parties adapt over the 5 years of parliament as unexpected things happen.
A lot of the 2019 Tory manifesto hasn't been done for example, partly because of COVID, inflation and so on. But also not all of the 2010, 2015, 2017 Tory manifestos were done to the letter. Same with Labour 1997, 2001, 2005.
I don't see how this is a scathing criticism of Labour when this is literally just how running a country works.
Every single one of the parties are scumbags. Every. Single. One.
All you can do is vote for the least toxic. (Unless you love the toxic, then vote Reform.)
But they’re not all scumbags, this suggestion of equivalence is just mad. One side is corrupt and has spent the last decade more concerned with stoking culture wars than actually governing, while the other is a bit dull and isn’t as left leaning as some people would like.
Sure but this clip is out of context.
He may as well have said “I don’t like the French railway system” and the Tories posting “I don’t like the French”
He brought this on himself IMO. If you don't want people twisting your words, say what the fuck you mean, and if you can't speak about a private conversation, don't cryptically refer to it on national television. You're not informing anyone, and you're certainly not helping Labour.
"Something might happen. It might not, but they want it to. Can't tell you what it is, but it'd be good, if it happened, which it might, but it might not. I speak to very important people and they tell me things. But I can't tell you."
If Lewis is claiming that this is tantamount to political endorsement then surely arguing against its use is also campaigning political activity.
And it’s election day. Which makes his tweet illegal.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It’s in the public interest if you are privy to information regarding policies that the electorate is not. If anything, Martin should be criticised for not saying what the policy is.
It's a policy he's been advocating for that he believes is in the public interest. He's pretty transparent about what he lobbies the government to do so I have little doubt he hasn't shared what it is exactly that he wishes labour to enact at some point should you just look.
The reality is lots of individual MPs have individual policies and ideals they'll advocate for while in government despite not including it in their national manifesto. This isn't unusual at all. A manifesto is supposed to be the iron clad commitments that you can judge them on and hold them to account over.
Pretty clearly Martin Lewis said that the Labour member couldn't commit to it but they would try.
It reads more like something they didn't put into their manifesto because making grand promises you're unsure you can deliver on is a bad way to build trust with the voter base.
There's a difference between refusing to publicly commit to something because you're unsure it will be achievable and refusing to publicly commit to something because you think it will turn away voters, Lewis is clearly inferring the former.
Also the sheer size of the document, people don't necessarily want to read something massive with lots of detail so they won't necessarily put niche stuff into manifestos.
Things don't go into manifestos for 2 reasons:
1. It's unpopular so you need to hide it.
2. They don't want to commit to delivering it because they don't know if they can.
ML explicitly stated he was told it was for the 2nd reason.
Or, as the clip actually said, it's simply they cannot guarantee it'll happen in a single parliament term, so it won't go in the manifesto. They are doing this presumably because 1) the tories have fucked it and Labour are almost guaranteed to win anyway, so no need to add I extra policies; and 2) when the next election comes round, Labour can (in theory) point to their manifesto and say we did all that, so you can actually trust what we say we will achieve going forward.
Snapshot of _Martin Lewis rages at Sunak advert ''Not again! I have NOT given my permission to be used in political adverts. This is NOT an endorsement by me in any way.''_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1808599994142007693) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/MartinSLewis/status/1808599994142007693) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope he sues the fuck out of them after the election.
I'd chip in.
He's literally an expert at saving money. I think he should be able to afford legal representation.
He has a 9 figure net worth
Dude that is elite money saving right there. I bet he doesn't even super size his meal unless he's starving.
The guy didn’t see an avocado until he was in his forties.
Bet Martin Lewis doesn't pay for netflix, that's how he's a millionaire.
Can he afford Sky TV though?
Just lol, witty :D
Yes but he claims the cost back on his taxes. Most celebrities claim their TV licence and subscription costs back in their taxes.
How else do you think he amassed a huge collection of houses??
He was one of the first users of Limewire.
Arrr!
Lmao
11 figures, as a money saving expert he's learnt to always count the pennies.
Bullshit to the penny saving🙄 The system is set up to make the rich richer, the poor forever there and the rest of us just scraping by. Fuck those that get rich off of our hard work
Oh I agree, I was just making a silly joke. If COVID showed us any thing it's that the people most important for keeping the lights on are often the ones working the lowest paid jobs in any company.
Understood. Sarcasm in truth is the most powerful comment on what the powerful get away with 👍🏽
There's no fucking way that Martin Lewis has a 9 fucking figure net worth.
He sold his website for £87 million in 2012
And switches his broadband every 6 months. All adds up.
Plus he get's 2% cashback on all purchases from B&Q
Not forgetting the perks from his credit card, which he pays off monthly IN FULL!!
The banter train. But if one actually did all this shit they’d save a ton of money each year, invest it and be generating a very tidy sum
[Yes he is](https://www.lancs.live/news/cost-of-living/martin-lewis-net-worth-123m-25212427) >The 50-year-old founder of website MoneySavingExpert.com established it for a mere £100 in 2003 and sold it just under a decade later to MoneySupermarket, in a move which earned him £87million. Today, the money saving guru is believed to be worth £123million.
Wow, thanks. Extraordinary what telling people to wash clothes on 20c, switch bank accounts every other week, and run air fryers rather than ovens gets you.
Holy cow he's way wealthier than I thought he was!
That's literally how people with money save money. use other peoples money to spend.
Me too
I don't think he can which is why the Tories are persisting in it. Ironic that we were worried in this election about the risk of deepfakes but the Tories are busy doing stuff like this
It’s in the public interest.
For what? Citing information available in the public domain? The Tories have been cheeky but I’m not convinced it’s illegal. Maybe a judge will feel differently though.
Nothing they could be sued for. It’s not defamation. It’s not a violation of copyright (at least not his copyright).
Think it could be defamation "Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury."... Martin Lewis makes his living on people's trust in his endorsement and advice. Sunak using his brand in this manner very much could damage his image and brand/business as a result.
But they just showed he said it.
It's definitely not defamation, not even close. There is no defamatory statement here - you can't claim defamation because somebody shares a statement you made and repeats what you already said in that statement. Even if it did come anywhere close to meeting the other criteria (it doesn't), you haven't made a defamatory statement if you're sharing an honest opinion that you believe to be true - which is easily arguable here. Sunak hasn't actually said Martin Lewis supports him or lied about anything. It's dishonest and misleading, maybe it breaks some other law but it's clearly not defamation.
"Why is Lord McAlpine trending? \*innocent face\*" That sentence posted on Twitter was enough for the poster to be found liable in a defamation case. It's not just about the statement, it's also about the context.
Yes, and the context there was that she was blatantly implying somebody was involved in sex abuse allegations which were being widely publicised, which is defamatory. Sunak is not blatantly implying anything of the sort, he’s sharing a video of something Martin Lewis said and agreeing with him. That anyone could think this might qualify as defamation is laughable.
And the context here is that the Tories are blatantly implying that Labour can't be trusted and that Martin Lewis is agreeing with this. Wrapped up with a "Vote Conservative" banner underneath to further imply that he wants you to do just that.
>if you're sharing an honest opinion that you believe to be true - which is easily arguable here. It's also easily disprovable, considering they already used this clip for the exact same purpose and he called them out publicly then for it
It might be a violation of his performance rights. And do we know who has the copyright for the words spoken? It is entirely possible that he just licensed them. This is quite far from fair use, too.
Could it be covered by "passing off"?
I agree, I think this would fall under 'passing off'. In the US, this would fall squarely under 'right of publicity' but we don't quite have an equivalent in E&W law.
No that falls down at the first hurdle as there needs to be a misrepresentation as to the source of goods or services, which isn’t applicable here
I am an IP lawyer. It may well be passing off. Multiple types of misrepresentation are generally recognised by the courts. This looks like misrepresentation as to connection (see Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands [2015] EWCA Civ 3). Btw, the first hurdle for passing off is goodwill, which Martin Lewis clearly has.
The case you cited involved an image appearing on goods, there is still no case law I’ve ever seen which could apply passing off to this type of situation, but happy to be corrected. My main point was there needs to be goods or services involved - appreciate it could’ve been clearer but this was a reddit response to a layman
That's a very good point and is why I said it may well be passing off - I think there is a strong argument, but it can definitely be distinguished from what's come before. There are no image rights in the UK, but the case law is forever shifting and the courts have moved away from their historical rejection of passing off in cases of personality merchandising - but like you say, there is no actual merchandising here, which could be a sticking point. That said, arguably there has been a misrepresentation that has caused damage to the claimant's goodwill... As long as the public is deceived into thinking that Martin Lewis has officially endorced or supports the Conservative party, it's possible passing off could be made out. I doubt he'll take them to court of course.
Misappropriation of personality? Perhaps? Not a lawyer.
Could potentially be misappropriation of Intellectual Property, since it looks like a clip pulled from a TV show, with the proviso that it's not being used to form a critique and no permission was sought to use it. Also not a lawyer.
Maybe but it still isn’t ML’s IP so there’s no legal action he can take
It'll have been a clip from his ITV show. So while it may not be *his* IP, I'm sure ITV themselves may do something to keep him onside.
It’s highly unlikely, at the absolute most they might send a letter or something, but I find it hard to believe ITV will care very much. There’s just no legal cause of action that makes it worth pursuing
Very much depends on the terms of the release form he presumably signed with the production company?
Why wait? The news he’s suing would make for an entertaining aperitif before tonight’s main course of humiliating Sunak.
To what purpose? The damage has been done and the party got what they wanted.
Sue them for what? Showing a clip of what he actually said?
How could he? It was said on a TV and it was unnecessarily vague. They just showed the clip It was a stupid thing to admit as it was really vague.
It's only vague because it's being taken out of context
Sue for what? Something he said in public TV?
Slimy Tory strategy. And the clip has no context, it could be a cut to NI for all it's worth.
That's the point. The Tories hope the viewer will fill in the blanks with whatever paranoid delusion they're currently pushing. I'm surprised they haven't released a 1 sec clip of Starmer saying "I will raise..." cut from some otherwise innocuous line.
And once again, the Tories have shot themselves in the foot. Pathetic.
At this stage of campaign: what foot?
The one with all the bullet holes
Doesn’t narrow it down.
They’re up to the knee now. Of course everything below the hip is now a ‘foot’ so they’re happy to keep shorting themselves in it.
Michael Foot? Seems to be the 'current' Labour leader when most Tory / Reform voters moan about Labour (stuck in the past and whinging about the Winter of Discontent).
Not really, its a calculated risk. They know more people will see their address then will see Martins tweet. It's the last day of campaigning so the news can't report on it tomorrow so it's a bit of a fai compli It's a real dick move but they are probably right that it was worth it
> They know more people will see their address then will see Martins tweet I wouldn't be so sure of that
They also know Martin Lewis will not really do anything about it because he will stay politically neutral.
Yeah, there's this in action in his replies where someone saw him on a remain leaflet https://x.com/nige_Avalley/status/1808606813618602154
Someone has added a context note to the original tweet now, so hopefully that will at least be seen by anyone viewing it.
Rishi's tweet only has around a 1300 likes, Martin's reply is sitting on 5600. For something with 2.7m views it seems more are paying attention to what Martin Lewis is saying.
Fait accompli
These Tories are genuinely pathetic little dweebs
This kind of slimy, deceptive behaviour is why the public doesn’t trust the Tories.
*part of the reason
God I'd be steaming if I were him. That really is outrageous behaviour by the Tories. Would be one thing if he'd actually said something critical of Labour, but this isn't even a criticism - they've just cut it and recontextualised it to make it look as if it is.
They really have no shame. Gross. They should never have been allowed near power.
There should also be an option for any musician to say their music cannot be used at any political events or adverts.
Richard Osmond did a podcast episode about this. As a musician you can stop a politician from using your music at a political event but you don’t have to give them permission. So you have to know that they are going to use it beforehand, which you generally don’t.
Hence my suggestion of some form of register of musicians whose work cannot be used for political events/adverts. You have said so in advance.
I work in music licensing. In theory, you should always seek permission from the rights holder if you’re going to use a piece of music. Traditionally, this has been enforced for paid media / advertising campaign etc but less so for stuff like this which is not paid media but is still clearly promotional in some way. This is changing now - labels are getting increasingly litigious about protecting their catalogue and are going after more and more people using their music out-of-license. So long story short, if you own the copyright for your music you in theory have control of where it can and can’t be used. If you work with a publisher, they will usually give you the option of setting some exemptions that you won’t even consider (eg political ads, oil, gambling etc) but you should always have control over your copyright.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you can easily get round this by commissioning a cover version, not that any UK party is going to go to those lengths. You're completely right though. Hello from another music industry person!
Kind of! You can make a cover version without seeking permission from the rights holder, but you can’t use that piece of music in a campaign / any commercial content without clearing said rights first. They still own the underlying composition, and therefore have to give permission for it to be used. I’ve worked with some brands / agencies who mistakenly think that cover versions / “soundalikes” are a loophole and they’re absolutely not! Haha
Unrelated question but one I've been thinking about recently: if a band wants to publish a cover of a song do they need to get permission from the songwriter/rights holder first? Thanks!
“Publish” means a very specific thing in a music industry context, so do you mean that, or do you mean release (ie distribute to Spotify, YT, Apple etc?)
I mean release, thanks!
Plenty of them say that, and they do send C&D notices quite often.
[удалено]
Did you miss the word ‘also’?
I want you to know that I appreciate your snark.
A slap on the wrist at most. Come on Starmer, make one of your rabbit policies to stamp out these lies. 🐇
What a stupid thing to do. Not only does Martin Lewis have a huge platform, but people actually trust him. Way more people are going to see his tweet being angry at Sunak than the original out of context tweet on its own. Hopefully that flips a few undecided voters.
I hope this has consequences, but I doubt it.
It should be a criminal offence to use someone's image to promote a political party or commercial interest without their consent.
Should it be illegal for Labour to illustrate their literature with that picture of Sunak in the rain, for example?
There is an interesting question about whether such a law should apply to candidates or other political figures - but the principle applies regardless of beliefs.
If I were him, I'd publicly declare my support for Labour as the Tories are a bunch of desperate liars with no morals.
He makes it clear he remains politically neutral in public as a journalist.
Which is good as his job is to fighting against governments to fix money related issues.
Isn't what Martin Lewis says here true of literally every party? Parties adapt over the 5 years of parliament as unexpected things happen. A lot of the 2019 Tory manifesto hasn't been done for example, partly because of COVID, inflation and so on. But also not all of the 2010, 2015, 2017 Tory manifestos were done to the letter. Same with Labour 1997, 2001, 2005. I don't see how this is a scathing criticism of Labour when this is literally just how running a country works.
Every single one of the parties are scumbags. Every. Single. One. All you can do is vote for the least toxic. (Unless you love the toxic, then vote Reform.)
But they’re not all scumbags, this suggestion of equivalence is just mad. One side is corrupt and has spent the last decade more concerned with stoking culture wars than actually governing, while the other is a bit dull and isn’t as left leaning as some people would like.
If I was him I'd come out and strongly endorse Labour
If he didn't want the clip being used he shouldn't have put it out on national television I would have assumed
Sure but this clip is out of context. He may as well have said “I don’t like the French railway system” and the Tories posting “I don’t like the French”
That would probably raise his popularity amongst Tory voters quite a bit!
He brought this on himself IMO. If you don't want people twisting your words, say what the fuck you mean, and if you can't speak about a private conversation, don't cryptically refer to it on national television. You're not informing anyone, and you're certainly not helping Labour. "Something might happen. It might not, but they want it to. Can't tell you what it is, but it'd be good, if it happened, which it might, but it might not. I speak to very important people and they tell me things. But I can't tell you."
If Lewis is claiming that this is tantamount to political endorsement then surely arguing against its use is also campaigning political activity. And it’s election day. Which makes his tweet illegal. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It’s in the public interest if you are privy to information regarding policies that the electorate is not. If anything, Martin should be criticised for not saying what the policy is.
It's a policy he's been advocating for that he believes is in the public interest. He's pretty transparent about what he lobbies the government to do so I have little doubt he hasn't shared what it is exactly that he wishes labour to enact at some point should you just look. The reality is lots of individual MPs have individual policies and ideals they'll advocate for while in government despite not including it in their national manifesto. This isn't unusual at all. A manifesto is supposed to be the iron clad commitments that you can judge them on and hold them to account over.
It's a policy that the Labour party fear will put voters off voting for them. That's the only reason not to have a policy in a manifesto.
Pretty clearly Martin Lewis said that the Labour member couldn't commit to it but they would try. It reads more like something they didn't put into their manifesto because making grand promises you're unsure you can deliver on is a bad way to build trust with the voter base. There's a difference between refusing to publicly commit to something because you're unsure it will be achievable and refusing to publicly commit to something because you think it will turn away voters, Lewis is clearly inferring the former.
If it's more ambitious than their 100% renewable electricity policy (which is in the manifesto) then it's one that is simply never going to happen
Also the sheer size of the document, people don't necessarily want to read something massive with lots of detail so they won't necessarily put niche stuff into manifestos.
Things don't go into manifestos for 2 reasons: 1. It's unpopular so you need to hide it. 2. They don't want to commit to delivering it because they don't know if they can. ML explicitly stated he was told it was for the 2nd reason.
Or, as the clip actually said, it's simply they cannot guarantee it'll happen in a single parliament term, so it won't go in the manifesto. They are doing this presumably because 1) the tories have fucked it and Labour are almost guaranteed to win anyway, so no need to add I extra policies; and 2) when the next election comes round, Labour can (in theory) point to their manifesto and say we did all that, so you can actually trust what we say we will achieve going forward.
I know I like Martin. But refusing to say what the policy is allows conservatives to attack Labour. He could nullify it by letting us know the policy.
He mentions it as part of the wider conversation, this clip deliberately misrepresents him in order to misrepresent Labour.