The Liberal Democrats have recently announced a new policy. A policy that transforms the political landscape, changes our society for the better and inspire millions… enforce a legal fine of up to £1000 on people who play loud music on public transport. Of course, I’m being sarcastic and quite frankly this is embarrassing.
Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that our party has come up with the right approach on lots of the big issues of the day, but this policy is a stinker for many reasons. Firstly, let’s look at the morals of this policy. Yes, I think we can all agree that when we use public transport and a fellow passenger plays loud music, it is annoying. Very annoying. However, this policy goes way too far.
As I referred to in my previous op-ed on Lib Dem Voice, My Journey from Socialism to Liberalism, I called for our party to go back to our core principle of freedom. Yes, so called ‘headphone dodgers’ may be irritating (to say the least) but they are in a public space. Whether we like it or not, they shouldn’t have to face the consequences of the law. Another reason why this policy is so bizarre, as referred to in the BBC article, is that people are already prohibited from playing loud music on public transport. So, this policy already feels redundant.
Let’s also look at the justifications made by our party. The BBC article also refers to a poll that are party created on this ‘issue’. 38% of respondents said that they have experienced other people playing loud music on public transport ‘often or sometimes’. I don’t want to point out the obvious but that is less than half. Our Home Affairs Spokeswoman, Lisa Smart said “Everyone deserves to feel safe and respected on public transport”. While I agree with that blanket statement, I would never say that I have felt unsafe when another passenger has played loud music on public transport.
This ludicrous policy also begs another question… how would this be enforced? I imagine there would be individuals who would use their right to appeal, only then adding to court backlogs that this country already faces. Surely, the state has more pressing matters at hand like shoplifting and other impactful anti-social behaviour’s than people who could, to be kind, just turn the volume down a little bit.
This is the nanny-state on steroids. This policy has been announced in the wake of the debate on the Bus Service Bill in parliament. Without major support from Labour, this policy will never happen anyway. Whilst this idea will never come to reality, this policy has made news. Why? Is it because of its boldness? Yes, but is it more because of its bizarre randomness? Absolutely.
This goes to a wider point. To win further support, more independent voters need to take us seriously. Whilst we could have a good set of elections coming up next week (hopefully I’ll be able to publish some overall predictions before then) when that next general election happens, people need to know that not only could we make a change to British politics but that we seem sensible and credible. Whilst I argue that we have those attributes, others will see policies like this (and the various stunts from Sir Ed Davey) and say that we are just a bit silly. A bit silly, in a world of danger and uncertainty.
Whilst Labour have become unpopular, they are still polling higher than most parties in the UK. Why is this? In my opinion, it is purely because the Prime Minister seems like a safe pair of hands in a time of many crises. He is not inspiring, he has already caused damage to the economy, small businesses and pensioners but he is sensible. After the turbulence of the Conservatives’ time in power, he brings a sense of calm. People want that.
So, when they see policies like this, it’s almost comical to the actual voter. They may ‘like’ the policy in its spirit, but would they go out to their polling station to vote for policies like this in a general election? No. It’s not inspiring, it’s not life changing, it’s not transformative. It’s a little quirky idea that tried to generate a headline. It’s achieved that but nothing more.
Let’s go back to the politics that has been working for us in recent years. Focusing on policies that voters feel most impassioned by, whether they are national or local. Whilst we have 72 fantastic MPs, let’s put them to good use. Don’t make them fight on gimmicks such as this.
* Jim Coupland is a member of the Liberal Democrats who joined us from the Labour Party. He describes himself as a "passionate Liberal".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
18 Comments
Could it be that this policy is an attempt to attract voters who may otherwise consider voting for Reform? If so, it will completely fail since those voters are far more annoyed by watching boatloads of (mainly) young men crossing the channel to enter our country while border control ensures that they can do so safely, than they are about loud music or conversations on public transport. It may even alienate some of those who may currently support us, driving them into the arms of the Green Party.
I disagree with the Jim and fully support the LibDem proposals. People playing loud music or other noise from their devices can totally ruin other people’s journeys. It’s utterly annoying, and very likely a deterrent to at least some people using public transport. And yes, even though music isn’t a direct threat to safety, it can make people feel unsafe, because when you play loud music, forcing other people to listen to it when they don’t want to, that for all practical purposes amounts to an invasion of their space. And if it’s someone bigger/stronger than you doing that…
Liberal principles demand we support maximum freedom EXCEPT one one person’s freedom impinges on the rights and freedoms of others. Playing sounds out loud on a train definitely falls into that category, and it’s also so unnecessary when headphones are easily available.
As a minor point of fact: I don’t believe people are prohibited from playing loud music on (all) public transport. There’s a railway bye-law prohibiting it on trains, but that doesn’t apply to buses. Individual bus operators may have their own policies. The problem on the railways is that no-one bothers to enforce the law here – which is something that really needs to accompany the LibDem proposals.
“People playing loud music or other noise from their devices can totally ruin other people’s journeys”
I agree.
A long time ago I recall hearing a story about a passenger on a train who got so annoyed about some kids using what we called a ‘ghetto blaster’ that he expressed a desire to look closely at the gadget. When the kids handed it to him he took the tape cassette out and threw it out of the train window.
To be fair, the policy has a little bit more substance and specificity than riding round somebody’s back garden on a hobby horse.
“they are in a public space” – exactly, a collective space where we all have to rub along, where we can’t help getting in each others faces. Such spaces can easily be made unbearable by a minority being inconsiderate, most of us recognise that & try not to irritate others.
For a start, the Lib Dem proposal appears to fine people not for playing “loud music”, but playing “music out loud”. So volume is irrelevant.
So, why not also fine people for shouting into their phones or laughing loudly? And don’t get me started on noisy eaters with their crinkly crisp packets….
I thought we liberals only banned things that cause actual harm to others, not annoyance? Because if we are banning annoying things, I have a long list and music on public transport is nowhere near the top.
The previous Government used the annoyance factor to justify limits to the right to protest, and we used to be against that sort of thing.
@Nick Baird
Has it occurred to you that on a railway journey some passengers might be trying to sleep?
“boatloads of (mainly) young men crossing the channel to enter our country ”
But most immigrants are here legally by normal transport routes. Is it total immigration or refugees that worry you most? Anyway, it’s likely that there will continue to be much immigration from Africa for the next 20 years or so.
@Jenny Barnes
“boatloads of (mainly) young men crossing the channel to enter our country”
That was me trying to suggest the mindset of someone who may be considering voting Reform – I suspect some of them may be unhappy about the total number of immigrants each year while others may be particularly outraged by economic migrants who ignore immigration rules and then claim asylum to prevent them being removed from the country. But that was not my point…I was suggesting that a policy of fining people for loud music on public transport will hardly attract voters who are motivated by issues around illegal immigration.
It is overwhelmingly young people who will be targeted by this idea. Most don’t have £1000 on hip. Conveniently of course they also don’t have a vote. This policy is populist pathetic nonsense, and exactly what I’d expect from the party right now. Britain foes not need a fourth conservative party.
Might “headphone dodging” on trains and increasing child hunger both be matters of an essential, if underestimated, form of freedom, which is “Freedom From”?
Might “headphone dodging” be a less important form of “Freedom From” freedom than freedom from [increasing] child hunger?
Might prioritisation of [headline] policies be a significant matter for consideration?
P. S. Quiet and loud railway compartments?
@nonconformistradical – yes, it has.
There are many sources of noise on a train that can disturb your sleep. Should we fine those responsible for all of them?
@Nck Baird
There is absolutely no need for someone to be playing music or shouting or singing etc. so loud that it interfers with other passengers’ right to a peaceful journey.
I get the impression you think one person’s right to make as much noise as they like in a public place outweighs other peoples’ right to a peaceful journey.
We all have rights – they have to be balanced when different peoples’ rights conflict.
And please remember J S Mill – do no harm
Japan,I understand, put one carriage as ‘silent passengers’ compartment where peace and quiet (sleep!?) is permitted. Equally I see no reason why railway companies cannot stress that laud music is not permitted and headphones have to be used. Surely notices on trains and stations,not to mention in/on the media can notify that antisocial behaviour is frowned on. Yes, as J S Mills said -do no harm. Making it clear in policy would be a good idea.
The Lib Dem press release specifically refers to “playing music and videos out loud from a phone on public transport”. I therefore assume that the Party has no issue with people playing other sounds such as podcasts or making phone calls out loud, or playing music and videos out loud from another device such as a laptop or other type of player such as ‘ghetto blaster’, or in railway/bus waiting rooms. Would a music ringtone become illegal?
This has the feel of an attention-seeking press release, rather than a serious and properly thought through policy proposal.
There are more important things for the party to spend the Members’ money on than a survey of public attitudes to noise on public transport.
This is a silly policy designed to attract some publicity before the local elections. On the latter point, it has succeeded and is part of the evolution of the party to one representing “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”.
It is about enforceable as attempts to monitor access toilets.
I am currently sat on a fairly empty bus in London. On the top deck, there is a group of lads chatting noisily and watching videos on their phones. They are mildly irritating but not deserving of a fine policed by whom – maybe we are better at rubbing along together in London than in the Home Counties.
Personally, I find passengers with feet on seats and the eating of smelly takeaways, then leaving the litter, on public transport more irritating.
@RMC 27th Apr ’25 – 1:49pm…
I, too, find passengers with feet on seats and the eating of smelly takeaways, then leaving the litter, on public transport irritating…
However, “Perfect is the enemy of good”
I would be grateful if a Party spokesperson could respond to this post with a description of how they propose to define “loud”. The most common measurement of acoustic noise level is dBA Leq. What value of dBA do you consider to be ‘loud’ (or would you propose a different weighting to ‘A’)? And what time period would you propose for Leq? (or perhaps on reflection on these questions, you might conclude that this proposed policy is unenforceable).