Conservative Manifesto

Here is the much anticipated Tory Manifesto.

We’ll start with Brexit (just briefly). Good Points: They have a deal. It might not be the best but they have one that has been agreed by all sides. If there is a Tory Majority, then this deal will be passed through the house and we will leave in January. That’s the crux of it.

Bad points: What they neglect to mention, is that the deal is basically a re-hash of Theresa’s deal, they got the EU to make exceptions for Ireland but that’s about it. They also neglect to mention that Brexit won’t be ‘over’ at this stage, as we then have to negotiate our ‘future relationship’ and a trade deal. However, these are both made easier with a working majority, so slightly good and bad.

That’s it, I won’t go into much more detail, as I don’t want to bore you. This election should be about the policies (as always), so let’s see what Boris can offer.

Let’s start with Security & Policing, as it is their strong point.

20,000 more Police officers costing £750m over three years.

Good points: A welcome boost to the police force. It will start with immediate effect so the idea is to make you feel safer straight away which, if you live in London (1/6 of the population does) should make you feel slightly better.

Bad points: We’ve seen the stories about Boris including in this figure of 20,000, asking Police Officers who were planning to retire to stay on. I can see it from both sides in that, you’re retaining the experience which can be put to use straight away (no training involved) and can also pass that experience on hand in hand with the recruitment drive. However, it fudges the figures so it’s not entirely there, it would probably be nearer 15-17k new officers.

We will back our police by equipping officers with the powers and tools they need to keep themselves and all of us safe, including tasers and body cameras.

Good points: Very strong policy and will go down well. I have said for a long time that the use of tasers should be rolled out. It de-escalates every situation it’s used in (i’m a saddo and watch these things on youtube) it can turn a very hostile situation like a knife wielding madman, into a safe controlled situation with him spasming on the floor. It’s also not a fatal firearm and it’s use will be used as a last resort. So good points all round.

Bad points: Some people might think this erodes civil liberties but to be honest, they will only use it on you if you’re in an uncontrollable state, in which case necessary force should and will be used. Buzz buzz bitches!

We will introduce tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes. For child murderers, there will be life imprisonment without parole.

Good points: Yes. Not even going to put bad points, as you can’t disagree with this.

£2.75 billion will be spent on creating modern, efficient prisons to better reform criminals and keep the public safe, whilst an extra £100 million will aid the crackdown on crime within prisons.

Good points: They will need extra prisons to cope with the extra sentencing and extra numbers they will get from the crack down on crime. It’s not an excessive amount to spend on this either. They will also try and address the issues inside prisons across the country, commendable.

Bad points: I’m not sure how having nice shiny new prisons will reform prisoners better, it lacks a bit of detail.

One thing I will draw attention to at this point is that the Conservatives do a better job at creating a manifesto. It’s so much less clunky, it’s clear, concise and compact. It looks a lot better too and most importantly, is a lot shorter! (My poor eyes are still bleeding from the Labour manifesto!) Without much further ado I will move onto the economy.

We not only want to freeze taxes, but to cut them too. We will raise the National Insurance threshold to £9,500 next year – representing a tax cut for 31 million workers. Our ultimate ambition is to ensure that the first £12,500 you earn is completely free of tax – which would put almost £500 per year in people’s pockets.

Good points: Tax cuts. No one likes paying tax but it’s a necessary evil for a strong functioning economy and keeps the country’s heart pumping. This mainly helps lower earners and £500 doesn’t sound like a lot but if you’re on minimum wage then that will help a lot.

Bad points: They should have included tax breaks for new families, which would have gotten a lot of praise but I suppose this is aimed at the workers because that’s the core demographic they go after.

We will use our freedom from the EU to improve the UK’s tax regime – not least by abolishing the tampon tax.

Good points: You shouldn’t pay tax on necessary objects. Especially considering you can’t pick if you have a period. Also due to there being more women than men in the country, it effects more of the population.

Bad points: I get why they included the EU but they could have refrained from using their name as a bashing stick and make it more about our country than those fuckers.

We want to give parents the freedom, support and choice to look after their children in the way that works best for them. We will establish a new £1 billion fund to help create more high quality, affordable childcare, including before and after school and during the school holidays.

Good points: What was I saying about helping parents a second ago? It’s a step in the right direct for the strict social policies of the Tories.

Bad points: It’s simply not enough. Like I say, it’s a good start but £1bn is the tip of the iceberg. There is also no clue if this is a gradual thing or if it’s starting straight away, slightly unclear. Not complaining though!

Our new £3 billion National Skills Fund, alongside other major investment in skills and training and our reforms to high-skilled immigration, will ensure that businesses can find and hire the workers they need.

Good points: Due to the clamp down on immigration and only taking in the workers we NEED, this is a nice way of investing in our own people to give them the skills they need to compete in the labour market. It will also push competition and make workers better at their jobs as the criteria will be slightly higher.

Bad points: The term ‘other major investments’ is vague to say the least. This is your manifesto, if you have major investments, it’s the one place you want to put it so people can work out a) How much it is? and b) Whether it’s a worthy use of our money? They might touch upon it later, as i’m doing this point by point due to my lack of time writing this.

As a first step, we will further reduce business rates for retail businesses, as well as extending the discount to grassroots music venues, small cinemas and pubs. That means protecting your high street and community from excessive tax hikes and keeping town centres vibrant.

Good points: This is a good policy. More needs to be done to ‘save the high street’ and local businesses. The internet has invaded the market and makes it harder for local business to survive. Any pub owner will also tell you there’s no money in running a pub, so this could very well save a local pub you know and love.

Bad points: None.

We will set out a new anti-tax avoidance and evasion law which will double the maximum prison term to 14 years for individuals convicted of the most egregious examples of tax fraud.

Good points: Making sure you pay your fair share. It’s a balanced way of going after tax dodgers.

Bad points: It depends what they deem as ‘egregious examples’. A lot of us started out labouring and working cash in hand when we were younger. Under these new rules would that be classed as egregious? I’m guessing this is geared up towards serial offenders and people evading paying on vast sums. The one thing Tories definitely can be seen as is harsh and I worry that leniency isn’t the word of the day. Not a fan of this policy if i’m honest, as it can be interpreted in that manner.

That’s the economy over with. To be honest it was a bit too short, however the results speak for themselves when it comes to the wealth creators of the Tory party. It’s the one thing they’re immensely good at is creating the wealth from business. It’s the one thing i’d trust them 100% on. The economy is in safe hands under the Tories. You can already see the vast differences in spending from the Labour Manifesto and this. Labour: “We’re throwing £250bn at this project”, Tories: “A couple billion here, a couple of billion there”. It’s being fiscally responsible and not being wasteful, as I alluded to in the other run throughs. The reason the Tories don’t need to cost this part of the manifesto is because a few billion can be found just from growth of the economy itself. There are no massive spending sprees (yet) or increased borrowing. I shall now move onto Education, usually Labour territory but we’ll see what the Tories can muster up.

We’re increasing school funding by £14 billion, with those areas historically underfunded receiving the greatest increase. Each secondary school pupil will receive a minimum of £5,000 next year, and each primary school pupil will receive £4,000 by 2021-22 meaning that every child has the resources they need for a good education.

Good points: It’s a good chunk of money to throw at this issue. They’re also targeting the worst hit areas. Good policy.

Bad points: It’s not costed. £14bn is a little bit bigger than throwing a few billion here and there. I can’t deny it’s needed but on balance they need to say where they can produce this money from.

There is also a funding boost of £400 million in education for 16-19-year olds, including further education and sixth form colleges, to give our young people the skills they need for well-paid jobs in the modern economy.

Good points: Further increases in spending on the education system.

Bad points: It’s not enough. The reason behind this is because their flagship policy in education has been Apprenticeships, so that will get more funding than standard students. I think that this age group is crucial as they’re picking the industry and career path they wish to follow. This should be encouraged so that we get the right individuals in the best positions which increases competition in the job market, something the Tories should want. Even though it’s an increase in public spending and on an area that needs it badly, this isn’t a good policy and I can’t get behind it. Do better.

We will also invest £10 million in national Behaviour Hubs to enable schools which already have an excellent behaviour culture to work closely with other schools to drive improvement to make sure the best education is available regardless of where you live.

‍Good points: It’s a good spin, haven’t heard of this before and is a different approach to schooling.

Bad points: Doesn’t seem like enough money? I mean if this is a national thing surely the wages of people running these Hubs is going to take up a large section of this money? That being said I like the policy, just think that maybe more money should be made available or at least a gradual injection of money every year?

In the biggest reform to teacher pay in a generation, salaries for new teachers will be increased to £30,000 by 2022-23 and we’re funding increased contributions into the Teachers’ Pension Scheme so that school leaders can focus as much of their resources as possible on the front line.

Good points: Fuck me. They’re going toe-to-toe with Labour on this policy. Admittedly it’s a gradual change over four years but this isn’t something you’d expect from the Tories. Quite rightly so though, I wholeheartedly agree that teachers should get paid more and like it says should stop them leaving for higher paid jobs, keeping the experience and knowledge in the education system.

Bad points: None, great policy from the political parties. Showing the teaching profession some love and appreciation.

We retain our commitment to the core subjects and also want young people to learn creative skills and widen their horizons, so we will offer an ‘arts premium’ to secondary schools to fund enriching activities for all pupils. And to ensure children are getting an active start to life, we will invest in primary school PE teaching and ensure that it is being properly delivered. We want to do more to help schools make good use of their sports facilities and to promote physical literacy and competitive sport.

Good points: I think an investment into the arts is good, as I said in the Labour manifesto.

Bad points: They haven’t put quite how much they will give and it’s very vague. Almost an empty promise, this is why the Tories don’t usually do well with Education. More needs to be done to address this.

That wraps up education. Some good and bad policies in there, can’t help but feel slightly underwhelmed by that section. The main policy missing is new schools and the repair of the existing ones, massively disappointed. To be fair, they’re the sitting government they can’t promise all this magical money like Labour, so it’s understandable. I know it’s the horrible slogan of Theresa the Appeaser but they genuinely are strong and stable. They get the job done efficiently. Enough, now onto healthcare, the ever growing political football. My betting is this is where all the money is going as they have played on this heavily throughout the campaign. Also if the figures were to be believed on the infamous bus, Boris has to follow through (only metaphorically) with this and actually throw some good money at the NHS. Especially after his hand was forced with this faked photo of the child on the floor of the Leeds hospital by a Labour activist (and supposed) parent of this child. This has obviously been debunked by nurses at the hospital and your common sense tells you that if your child really was that ill, you’d be holding them or would have them sat on your lap. Or better still, you’d give up your own fucking chair for them! For those of you without kids I don’t expect you to understand but being a parent it is frustrating that they’d try and use this as a points scoring exercise, it’s just shitty parenting.

The NHS budget will go up by £33.9 billion by 2023-24. That’s the biggest cash boost in its history.

Good points: Well I was right on the money with that, quite literally. That is probably their flagship policy due to the amount of money involved. The NHS is underfunded and the Tories have been hounded by opposing parties about this, so this is a gigantic step in winning people over and showing they do care about the NHS. This should win some votes and hopefully a little bit of trust from the electorate, even voters from other parties.

Bad points: It’s not costed. I’m beginning to feel like I have a complex because of this sentence! Where is £33bn going to come from? I’m guessing there will have to be a minor amount of borrowing to fund part of this. That being said, we can all agree this is a worthwhile policy and needs to be enacted. Sure it’s over 4 years but that’s how politics works, on a 4-5 year cycle. Strong policy and likely to swing a lot of the votes. Doorstep research is probably behind this.

We’re providing £850 million for 20 hospital upgrades, £2.7 billion for the first six new hospitals, and seed funding so that work on 34 more can make progress.

Good points: Now we’re getting to the meat and drink of the NHS policies. Strong. Decent amount for upgrading the current hospitals and a building plan for others. Might not be the amount expected but it’s all good stuff. Also the seed funding is an appetiser for more building of new hospitals.

Bad points: None.

78 hospital trusts will receive state-of-the-art MRI, CT and mammography screening machines, so cancer can be detected more quickly to boost survival rates.

Good points: Couldn’t agree more. Much like the Labour Manifesto pledge to kit out the hospitals with the equipment they need, this does exactly that too. Cancer is such a bastard any attempt to beat it is appreciated.

Bad points: None.

Over 1 million NHS staff – nurses, midwives and cleaners – are getting a well-deserved pay rise of at least 6.5% per cent and doctors will also see their pay increase.

Good points: They’re on a roll. The most under appreciated public servants (teachers, nurses, etc…) are getting a nice wedge and you love to see it. This is 1.5% more of an increase in pay for hospital staff than what Labour are offering. I’m not about point scoring but that’s a big difference and it was probably designed to be a vote winner amongst NHS workers.

Bad points: None, if you think they don’t deserve an increase you’re heartless. They do a great job that a lot us couldn’t and they do back breaking shifts (sometimes without breaks) just so that we’re taken care of.

We’re also opening five new medical schools to make sure we can plan for the future with confidence as we train the next generation of NHS staff here at home.

Good points: This is backing up and doubling down on their promise of the Australian style immigration system. We will only take in the best, the rest is to be filled with out own people. This is a good positive step in encouraging people to join the health service.

Bad points: None.

50,000 more nurses, with students receiving a £5,000-£8,000 annual maintenance grant every year during their course to help with their cost of living – and they won’t have to pay it back.

Good points: They’re really going the whole hog here. I know the NHS has a large contingent of foreign workers but they’re not all suddenly going to jump ship and go back to their country of origin? That would say more about them than us if it were true.

Bad points: It’s a lot of money, not costed again but they can obviously see a gap in the market that needs addressing so are ‘heading it off at the pass’. Responsible to stop a problem before it becomes one.

Our new funding will deliver 50 million extra general practice appointments a year, an increase of over 15 per cent. That means that if you need an appointment, waiting times will be shorter and you’ll get the service you deserve.

Good points: Sounds good.

Bad points: They will struggle to enforce it. GPs are notoriously opposed to all Tory plans to improve our system. Cast your mind back to the idea of Saturday appointments and the backlash from that.

That is why overseas qualified doctors, nurses and allied health professionals with a job offer from the NHS, who have been trained to a recognised standard, and who have good working English, will be offered fast-track entry, reduced visa fees and dedicated support to come to the UK with their families.

Good points: This will also help to address the shortfall in NHS workers that have threatened to go home. Fast track visas for the very best healthcare professionals.

Bad points: None.

That is the end of the Conservative manifesto. Although I don’t feel overwhelmed or buried under policies and jargon like the others so far, there was something left a little wanting. They could have fleshed out a few ideas and explained spending slightly better but on the whole there were some good strong policies in there. Let’s rate it and see how it stacks up.

Fresh original ideas: 2.5/5
Practicality and realistic pledges: 3.5/5
Financial viability: 4/5
Responsible and sensible pledges: 3.5/5
Total: 12.5 out of 20

I feel more could have been done in the way of innovative fresh ideas, I remember doing the Conservative manifesto from the 2015 election (I think) and remember feeling like Britain could take on the world, looking out to space and being pioneers and controllers of our own destiny. This feels like more of the same of what we have except with a majority so they can actually get some legislating done. Which whilst it isn’t bad and shows responsibility and grip of being in office already, it doesn’t scream excitement to me. I also marked it down on practicality and realism because I found quite a few of the policies to be vague and not really groundbreaking in terms of setting things in stone. Of course I marked it the highest on financial viability for a number of factors. Being that they’re the best wealth creators, no massive increase in spending across the board, no excessive borrowing and the increases that were made, seemed completely doable as I explained ‘a few billion here, a few billion there’. Finally, I gave it fair to medium rating for responsibility of the pledges. There were a few that stood out and made perfect sense whilst others didn’t, you’re never going to get a perfect manifesto, it’s just a popularity contest on which is the most wanted. To be entirely honest, if you’ve watched politics as long as me, the amount of pledges that actually get forgotten or scrapped once in power is noticeable.

I know a lot of you reading will know of my political stand point and think i’ve rated the Tories better, as they’re more aligned to my own personal politics. I’d like to point out they only beat Labour by 2 points by my rating system, to put that into context I couldn’t be anymore opposed to Labour if I tried. They even did better than the Liberal Democrats, which i’m also surprised by, as I have already said I believe the Lib Dems to steal huge crowds of votes from Labour. So, on balance I do believe that yes the Tories are the best option (depending on your MP) in this election as they’re the only ones in a strong position, financially but also politically. There is massive in-fighting between Labour, with Emily Thornberry coming out today saying she will definitely run for party leader. The election isn’t even over yet! I do believe like I said previously that once Corbyn is gone I think Labour will get into power, for how long is another thing altogether!

The last thing i’d like to add is one of my favourite policies is actually missing from the Manifesto. In fact they missed transport completely off! They plan to re-establish thousands of train lines that, in fairness were shut back in the 60’s by the Tories under something called the Beeching cuts. However, as I have explained in one of the other posts, it will do wonders and bring connectivity to rural areas and areas that might benefit greatly from having stronger links.

Please think carefully before voting and if after reading these breakdowns, the actual manifestos themselves and done research and you STILL don’t know which way to vote; then go online and find one of the quizzes that tells you who you’re most closely aligned too. I couldn’t care less who you vote for (unless it’s the SNP!) as long as you DO vote. Too many people take democracy for granted, plenty of sitting MPs who’re about to get a massive surprise, for one! I will try my hardest to get the Brexit Party run through done but I feel it might be a stretch, we shall see! Thank you for reading.

 

 

Liberal Democrat Manifesto

This is the first of the run throughs of manifestos that I am collating for the average Joe. As always I will do so by giving as much background information as possible without being clunky. I want to give you guys a fair chance at making your own minds up. Also I will rate the manifesto, this is marked out of a few points. Fresh original ideas, practicality and realistic pledges, being financially viable and finally whether they make sense! I’ll try not to be too boring and overbearing.

In the interest of being neutral and as impartial as possible (I will try but I will call out bullshit) I decided to start with the Lib Dems manifesto. What I expect is some good social policies, maybe unrealistic and non economically sound proposals and lots of ‘progressive’ policies for the virtue signaling brigade. That being said we shall see what they have in store.

First up is the obvious. STOP BREXIT. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Whilst at least they have the bollocks to be openly Remain and actually have a stand point (just look at the shambles from Labour flip flopping trying to gain Leave and Remain voters); they’re going against the biggest democratic mandate in this country’s history. If they were to get in (unlikely) then it would be a big kick in the dick for democracy and ordinary voters up and down the country. It would cause a big disaffection with politics and is uncertain what lengths the public would go to, to reassert themselves over the ‘ruling class’. This will win them the most votes but at the very heart of it, is a minority stand point and will more than likely just split the Labour vote. They say they will use the £50bn to go into public services and tackling inequality. Big blanket term and doesn’t actually explain how they will tackle it and how they will funnel the resources to fight this inequality. So not only financially vague but wholly irresponsible. Bad shout. Also I have a hard time believing this, when I still remember Nick Clegg being one of the only leaders wanting the referendum in the first place. As usual Lib Dems willing to whore themselves out to get any semblance of power/votes.

Now we got Brexit out of the way we can get onto the economy, as i’m sure you’re sick of hearing about Brexit! Especially as it’s other key policies that shape a government and who actually gets things done.

Equal opportunities between cities.

The good points: They promise to continue with the Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine, so funding to these areas will continue, which I think is brilliant. For us to continue to grow as a country, we can’t just rely on the financial centre in the South East. Whilst it’s a great economic hub and creates enormous wealth for the country, I think that it’s only fair we use that wealth to pull up our brethren in the north. Investment into some big northern cities would be advantageous to us all, eventually I believe we’ll start to see ‘clean cities’ completely run on renewable energy. Slick, clean, classy modern cities is what we should expect from the future. Not that it will happen but we can dream, eh?

The bad point: You can’t please everyone. If you were to invest in Manchester and Birmingham, then Leeds and Newcastle would get jealous and possibly feel left behind. It’s a balancing act but a step in the right direction.

They plan to incorporate the British Business Bank more into the economy to help with small and medium sized businesses. Good point: They say they’ll work with normal banks to help as well. Encouraging small businesses is great as they make up a large part of the sector and creates aspirations for the normal person to one day own their own business.

Bad point: No one can trust the banks, they’re in it for themselves and will surely be out to make lots of money out of people. The only issue with pushing for lots of small and medium sized businesses is you can over saturate the market. Not only this but you can see irresponsible lending from the banks to people they know can’t pay it back. It could be businesses built on good ideas but not a solid enough business plan, leading to failure and loss of money. Yet again it’s trying to find a balance between responsible lending and pushing for a thriving small business ethos.

Upgrading the tourism sector and creating a new department in government to reflect this is a bad point, no good points. It’s using up money to create another level of bureaucracy we don’t need but will ultimately end up paying for. Whilst it’s good they’re trying to support areas that depend on tourism for their income, we would end up paying more for someone (Minister for Tourism) that doesn’t need to be there and all their staff and expenses, than actually trying to help out the tourism sector! Think i’ll pass.

House building targets are yet again a necessary evil that will never be met. I understand all major parties have to put it in there but we all know that there’s not much that can be done to get these houses built. We shouldn’t have to give up green belt land. This country is too densely populated as it is and we shouldn’t ruin the beauty of this country to try and prop up an unsustainable population. If you’re lucky enough to live in the countryside then you shouldn’t have to be concreted over. It’s the only irony of these parties that scream about the ‘climate emergency’ but want to wipe out nice green areas to accommodate a rising population. Let’s try to steer away from who is encompassed in that term population for now, otherwise I will turn wildly off topic as usual!

Investment in public transport – Good point: Public transport has been slightly neglected and it would be good to see any increase in spending for this sector. They have also said they want to make all trains ultra low emissions by 2035 (electric or hydrogen) which is commendable.

Bad point: They want to continue with HS2. Which was a good idea but is impractical, impossible to implement and is rising in costs by the day. Needs chopping. Also whilst I think it’s great to make the trains electric or hydrogen by 2035, it doesn’t say how much this will cost or how they will pay for it! My thoughts are, it will be a huge cost and would more than likely come out of an excessive borrowing budget, fiscally unsound.

Rolling out fibre optic broadband across the UK is unrealistic and costly. If you want it then pay for it, I have to and so should you. I understand they want to connect rural areas but BT are already rolling out superfast broadband across the UK already and it only effects their customers not the taxpayer. Yes they’re doing it in stages and it seems like an eternity (I had to wait 5 years for it to come to my area, suffering with excruciatingly slow broadband in the meantime) but we just have to be patient. We want too much given to us on a plate nowadays. I won’t mince my words, the internet is not a basic human right. I hate using the term but there are places around the world without the internet or even worse censored internet and surveilled upon. There are more important things to focus our energy and money on. Next.

Taxation – Good points: None.

Bad points: Yet again they plan to go after the giant corporations. This plan will not work. They will simply relocate out of the country which we don’t want. Could you imagine a mass exodus of all the big companies to our main competitors in Europe, absolute disasterclass. They want to increase corporation tax to 20% which was lowered (to 17%) by the Tories to encourage business and create wealth, because hey money doesn’t grow on trees! They also want HMRC to employ more staff to go after the big businesses but when the big businesses leave, they will turn onto the normal taxpayer to fund all these policies and they will have a bigger workforce to chase normal people down. Not a good time for PAYE workers who do their own tax returns or small business owners, the people they’re trying to ‘help out’.

Promoting wellbeing – Good points: This is a subject close to my heart so I back this. Although the way in which they’re going about it is typically political. Enter stage left, the new Minister for Wellbeing. Another unnecessary post created for the pure purpose of presenting to parliament every year on main measures of wellbeing and how government policies effect them. They could have done without this, however this post could be used as the new head of Mental Health services, not likely though so would be under bad points but i’ll keep it in good for now as it is very important. They also want to increase “access to high-quality mental health and other health services” which is good but they don’t explain how they will pay for it again.

Bad points: “Introduce wellbeing impact assessments for all government policies.” Says it all really. We won’t make the big decisions for the country that need to happen because they may negatively impact Dawn from Doncaster. When you make decisions at the top level there are always going to be winners and losers, you can’t please everybody.

I now move onto Education and skills.

Free childcare for 2-4 year olds and 9 month-2 year old 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year free. Good points: Childcare is a huge issue in this country and this does take good steps towards addressing it. Me and my wife are going through this right now, as she’s just about getting ready to go back to work and it’s almost not worth her going back due to the astronomical costs. More help is needed from the government and they should be doing more to help families. There are areas that need serious shake ups, this is one of them.

Bad points: Yet again, giving away free things without accounting for the cost of it. That will cost a hell of a lot of money and there is only so much you can tax people to pay for things. The other side of the coin are the type of people that don’t have kids who i’ve heard before saying things like ‘if you can’t afford kids don’t have them’ or ‘I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s kids’. I feel these statements are unhelpful, as you do need to replenish the population so that we can grow the economy in the future and it saves you having to import labour and dilute the native population, which is unneeded and easily combatted by encouraging our own people to have children. This being said, people have the right to not want to pay for other’s children, if they’ve made the choice not to have them and their right should be protected.

Reverse cuts to school funding, allowing schools to employ an extra 20,000 teachers and reduce class sizes, restoring them to 2015 levels per pupil with an emergency cash injection. Good points: More teachers addresses the major problems we have in the teaching profession at present. I have put on here previously about the dwindling numbers of teaching staff, mainly down to the fact they can get paid better elsewhere for a less demanding job. Reducing class sizes increases the quality of learning for children and lessens the burden on teachers who have to usually contend with teaching a class of 30-35 children. It will also help especially in under funded inner city schools who need the cash injection to help with social mobility.

Bad point: It’s becoming boring but it’s not costed, however I will let this one slide as i’m sure everyone would be happier paying a tiny bit extra tax to fund this, as it is at crisis point and we can’t let down the next generation. I’m in agreement with this policy.

Introduce a ‘curriculum for life’, in all state-funded schools. This will include Personal, Social and Health Education, financial literacy, environmental awareness, first aid and emergency lifesaving skills, mental health education, citizenship and age-appropriate Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). Teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships, and issues surrounding explicit images and content will be included in RSE. Good points: Introducing financial literacy to the curriculum is a good step as it’s one thing that you actually need in life and are never taught! First aid and emergency life saving skills is also a nice touch, as it is a good thing to have skills wise and could spark an interest in caring for people or even lead to joining the NHS which we should encourage; as we shouldn’t have to rely on foreign workers to prop it up post Brexit. We will need to find the workers from somewhere, so recruiting from our own stock is the sensible option. Mental health education is a good step in making people aware of the issues we all face at some point in our lives. It can also help young people recognise the signs before they take hold which could potentially save lives.

Bad points: Environmental awareness is a tough one. If it is educational then great. If they try to push an agenda which you fear that the liberal leaning teaching profession would, then this could become one of those terrible ways of pushing unbalanced views on our children and they should be able to make their own mind up about this subject. Not have a certain version rammed down their throats. Age appropriate relationships and Sex education is another one i’m weary of under a Liberal administration. You fear they will push a weird progressive agenda onto impressionable kids and mess them up. It’s all age relative, if you’re teaching them when they’re say 15 years old about what to expect and what to watch out for (e.g older partners, grooming, etc…) then fine. If they’re 12 years old and they’re pushing to tell them having sex with one of these pansexual self identifying nutjobs then it’s wrong. You could warp the perceptions of an innocent child and potentially wreck their entire sexual life based on shaky foundations fed by a progressive fad of indecisive attention seekers. Which leads nicely onto LGBT+ relationships. The fact they added the + onto the end tells me it’s wrong, all wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, that should be touched upon in the standard sex education, obviously not in excessive detail. But to push across these views of Trans people to younger people is yet again dangerous. A lot of Trans people are mentally unstable and suffering from mental health issues that are not properly diagnosed and the fact it’s been thrust into the limelight and you hear these horror stories of parents pushing their own kids to transition into the opposite sex is abhorrent, it’s child abuse, pure and simple. If you accept this is normal and condone these actions, then you can’t be trusted to teach this subject to kids. End of.

Oppose any future expansion of grammar schools and devolve all capital funding for new school spaces to local authorities. Good points: They probably see it as ‘the same education’ for all, which is a nice idea to have but is unrealistic. By mixing all abilities you risk dumbing down the ultra clever ones, why sacrifice ones at a higher level for the benefit of a few slightly slower children? It’s the same reason you get put into ‘sets’ when it becomes serious (e.g GCSE’s).

Bad points: Opposing grammar schools has never made sense to me, ever since I learnt what they were. They increase the opportunities of kids that might not usually have the opportunity to have access to such a quality education. It increases social mobility exponentially and makes them aspire to be better than they normally would be. It also rewards being the best, the smartest and getting there by yourself. The only thing that could be changed, should be the stress surrounding the SATs test to prove you can get into these grammar schools. Kids shouldn’t be pushed by their parents to get in, the tests should be changed and there should be no indication the test is coming, also the normal grades should be taken into account of admission to grammar schools, as some children don’t perform well in one off situations.

Raise the starting salary for teachers to £30,000 and increase all teachers’ pay by at least three per cent per year throughout the parliament. Good point: I bought it up earlier, this would solve the issue of teachers leaving for better paid jobs, keeping good people with the skills needed to do the job. I’m behind giving teachers more.

Bad points: None really. Public services have needed a wage increase for a while.

Challenge gender stereotyping and early sexualisation, working with schools to promote positive body image and break down outdated perceptions of gender appropriateness of particular academic subjects. Good points: Positive body image is important to push, so many issues with self esteem are embedded in body image from an early age, kids can be mean and damaging to each other. In pushing this, you can free the child’s mind and push them to reach their potential unhindered by poor self esteem and confidence issues.

Bad points: Stop. You need help. Gender appropriation is a myth. Men and women can do anything they want today. We’ve had two female Prime Ministers now (no need to point out they’re both Tories, but I will, just for balance.) there is no ceiling, that is the very top. The only issue now is paying them the same amount as blokes for the same job. The only time I would disagree, is if they’re not as competent and vice versa, a woman should get paid more in bonuses if she’s outperforming her male colleague and is more effective in her role. New age feminists are pushing it too far, this is a fact not an opinion.

Reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students, ensuring that living costs are not a barrier to disadvantaged young people studying at university. Good points: I received EMA when I was in sixth form, it was good and not too much money (think it was £30 a week) it really helped paying for public transport and things I needed for sixth form. As long as they don’t go silly and give them loads of money when they’re fiscally irresponsible, then i’m all for it.

Bad points: Can’t think of one.

I will move onto Health & Social care now.

Raise £7 billion a year additional revenue which will be ring-fenced to be spent only on NHS and social care services. This revenue will be generated from a 1p rise on the basic, higher and additional rates of Income Tax (this revenue will be neither levied nor spent in Scotland.) Good points: I think we can all agree this is okay and needed, from any party.

Bad points: None. They’ve actually costed a policy, hurrah. I jest.

Introduce a statutory independent budget monitoring body for health and care, similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This would report every three years on how much money the system needs to deliver safe and sustainable treatment and care, and how much is needed to meet the costs of projected increases in demand and any new initiatives – to ensure any changes in services are properly costed and affordable. Good points: None.

Bad points: Paying more people to tell you we need more money is counter productive and lazy. The government should have fiscal responsibility of the NHS and that shouldn’t change. You’re never going to have enough money to properly run the NHS, this does not help. Ridiculous policy.

Support the creation of a new Professional Body for Care Workers, to promote clear career pathways with ongoing training and development, and improved pay structures. Good points: Improving pay should encourage more workers, which we desperately need. Giving them the training they need to perform their duties is a good step to ensuring the right people are in the right role. Totally onboard.

Bad points: None.

There is a lot of noise but no real cutting edge policies concerning the NHS so I have skipped a fair amount, mainly for your benefit! Now onto Freedom, Rights and Equality.

Introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law to cover gender identity and expression. Good points: None as proved in court not long ago.

Bad points: I think this matter is more to do with tracing people in and out of the country and becomes a matter more of national security, which should be paramount over what some perceive as their personal right. It is a sensible step by the government to fight this as it has gone on far enough. This movement are just trying to create more issues and is trying to frustrate the normal procedures in place that are there to safeguard us. I can’t take anymore of this attention seeking madness. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, there’s no escaping your past. You were born a man/woman, if you decide you want to change then good for you but you can’t change the fact you were born a specific way and by extension try to rewrite history by projecting your fantasy onto others; It could also be used as a way for someone to go off the radar, there would be untold issues of trying to track people whose identity suddenly stops as they change not only their gender but their name. They could leave the country as Mark Johnson, have a sex change, come back and then apply for a passport as Mary Johnson without anyone knowing. What if he’d committed a crime, he gets off scott free. Although I expect nothing less from the Liberal Democrats so i’ll move on.

Increase statutory paternity leave from the current two weeks up to six weeks and ensure that parental leave is a day-one right, and address continuing inequalities faced by same-sex couples. Good points: Two weeks just isn’t enough, I know from experience. Couldn’t agree more, yet again more has to be done to sort out the system and how the roles (of fathers especially) have changed. I also think it should be staggered so that you can enjoy different stages of your babies development.

Bad points: None as it doesn’t need to be costed, due to it being paid for by the employer and god knows we all deserve more from them!

Provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK by resettling 10,000 vulnerable refugees each year and a further 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children from elsewhere in Europe over the next ten years, and expanding family reunion rights. Good points: None.

Bad points: There are many. Let’s start with the numbers. It’s excessive, it should all be done on a case by case basis. Refugee is a dirty word now, as it has been abused and distorted from it’s true definition. A real refugee now would be say for example, British passport holders in Hong Kong. They’re quite literally being beaten and locked up by the Chinese imposed regime. They’re political refugees that we have technically signed up to protect just over 20 years ago (1997). I don’t buy the whole refugee from the middle east thing anymore. They quite literally have to pass through dozens of safe countries to get here and try to gain asylum. That isn’t a refugee, that is an economic migrant. We have enough of those, get in line and fill out the necessary paperwork like EVERYBODY ELSE. We need to focus on migrants from all over the world and make it a fair playing field. Get the very best and brightest, it’s a privilege to come to this country, not a right. A refugee is someone fleeing war and is displaced and can no longer return due to fear of their safety. Why not go next door to Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy country and not too far from your home, meaning when you repatriate (which all refugees should) it isn’t a huge journey for you. Or go north to Russia one of the top three richest countries in the world. No that’s right, you’ll travel to gullible European countries trying to do the right thing to show they’re caring, as they’re too scared to be called racist. Sick of it.

Stop Brexit and save EU freedom of movement. This is getting comical now. Good points: None.

Bad points: You will still be able to freely travel throughout Europe. You just have to produce your passport at the border, much like everyone used to before the EU. Personally looking forward to getting lots of stamps in my passport to show where i’ve visited. How do you think American or Australian backpackers travel Europe? By law you are allowed 90 days free travel throughout the Schengen area and we will be entitled to the same rights. 90 days. Nearly three months. If you’re going to travel for more than three months, then you might need visas but if you’re planning a trip of that magnitude, then applying for visas is probably not going to be much different from planning a trip to the US or Asia? People are just lazy, there I said it. All this information is readily available. Please don’t buy into these scare stories, this is just another ploy from people with vested interests trying to make you believe things are changing and people don’t like change, so it must be bad right? For the love of god, just do some research.

Give 16- and 17-year olds the right to vote in elections and referendums. Good points: Yet again none.

Bad points: I do really wonder if they were on drugs when making some of these policies. I’ll break it down like this. We don’t trust people to legally drink until they’re 18 as they can’t be trusted. But they’re willing to let them have a say in changing the country based on people offering them free things. They’re literally deluded. You can’t even go to prison until you’re 18, you’re not even legally an adult. That’s where the line must be drawn. Just because you can change something, doesn’t mean you should. It’s another example of being patient, we expect instant gratification due to the advancement of technology and we want everything right here right now. This can’t be applied to voting, a certain degree of responsibility and thought is needed when making a choice that will effect the entire country for the next five years. Also by extension referendums! Jesus, don’t even get me started.

Extend the right to full participation in civic life, including the ability to stand for office or vote in UK referendums, Local Elections and General Elections, to all EU citizens who have lived in the UK for five years or more. Good points: None.

Bad points: This is irresponsible and unnecessary. You should only be allowed to stand for office and vote if you were born here. Before you think this is biased and ‘narrow minded’, my wife is an EU citizen and she agrees. She can still vote in Sweden and that is the way it should be. She’s a Swedish citizen and reserves the right to influence change in her own native land. The same should apply here. They’re basically trying to import votes, which is undemocratic and it stinks.

This last section is called Better Politics. I’m trying my hardest to stay focussed and unbiased but it’s oh so very hard.

Reform the House of Lords with a proper democratic mandate. Good points: The House of Lords is long overdue a reformation. They have proved this in the frustration of Brexit. There is no longer a reason they shouldn’t be an elected body. I think it should be split into industries, those that have served at the very top of their professions for a long time and are honoured by the Queen, should then be put forward for the public vote. Say for example you have top scientists honoured. You had a top physicist, chemist, biologist etc… They would be in the category of science, there would be a certain amount of seats reserved for this industry. You would then vote on the ones put forward. Same would apply for business, technology, sport, education, economy, etc…a broad range. We would then have actual law makers who have incredible experience in their field. I also think they should limit the amount of ex-politicians allowed in the chamber, as they usually get put in the Lords after being law makers for a certain amount of time or serving in a government. Due to the Commons having far greater powers and being able to push certain legislation thorough the Lords without scrutiny, why should they then be able to effect laws in the Lords? It should be decided on the number of votes in the general election and share of the vote. So for example, if the Brexit party got 8% of the vote but no seats, they’d be entitled to a set amount of Lords to be appointed to the chamber. Same would apply for the Greens who consistently get about 3-4% of the public vote and only ever one or none MPs. I think if the leader loses the election which they technically do most of the time, then that leader would be the one put forward to the Lords. Meaning they’re not put to waste and would push the losing parties to be more competitive and advance their younger members, meaning fresh young talent gets through quicker rather than parliament being a stuffy old person’s game as it is now. It would also be representative, as it would mean the Lords would have high end political figures who commanded a fair amount of votes to be made party leader, would then be able to represent the views of the party in the other chamber. The ruling party would get a fair share too due to their share of the vote, which doesn’t always equate to huge amounts of seats. Only difference is their leader would obviously be Prime Minister, so wouldn’t be able to sit in the Lords. So maybe the longest serving member who loses their seat in that election would be the highest ranking for the ruling party? There are many avenues to go down but this would be the most fair I think.

Ensure that a new Prime Minister, and their programme for government, must win a confidence vote of MPs. Just had to go through this without good or bad points as I think this is lazy. I think they miss the exact point of a general election here. In fact, this very election was called because it was no longer a majority government, minority governments can’t rule as nothing gets done (as we’ve seen recently).

Legislate to allow all-BAME and all-LGBT+ shortlists. Good points: Still on drugs I see.

Bad points: Shortlists are a very bad idea. Nothing is more demeaning to the people on these lists as they know they’re only there due to the colour of their skin or their sexuality. If you want a free and fair society like they say they want, you will let them all get there on their own merit, not a quota set to involve them. Just look at the Tories, they have a Home Secretary and Chancellor who are BAME. You don’t need to belittle these people to try and give them a voice, if they’re not good enough to get there in the first place, then they shouldn’t be there. Just look at Diane Abbott and David Lammy. Look at them. Listen to some of the ridiculous stuff that comes out of their mouths. Proof that just because you are from a different ethnicity, doesn’t mean you should be allowed near a position of power.

Expect the BBC both to provide impartial news and information, and to take a leading role in increasing media literacy and educating all generations in tackling the impact of fake news. Good points: They’ve got to be having a laugh.

Bad points: Everyone knows the BBC are so biased it hurts. They can’t hide it and haven’t been able to for years. Perfect example was last night’s Have I Got News For You. Was laughing a lot more than usual, you know why? Because during election season (the duration of an election campaign) they can’t be seen to be influencing the result so have to ridicule and satire everyone equally. I wish I was joking. There was the most amount of Corbyn and Labour bashing I’ve seen in ages. There was still the tired old Brexit jokes but at least the observational humour wasn’t entirely directed at Tories and Trump for once. Whilst it was enjoyable, it was actually quite sad to think that they only did it because they’re made too and not because it’s funny. That would be true impartiality. In regards to the fake news, yet again looking at people like Andrew Marr, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis you can see their bias in everything they do. The only true unbiased broadcaster is of course Andrew Neil, who goes after everyone equally as hard. The saddest thing about the abuse he gets is people actually try to paint him as biased, yet the one person in a bit of controversy is Boris as he’s ducking the interview. Surely then if Andrew was a ‘closet Tory’ as I’ve seen him labelled, why would a Tory PM be scared to do an interview with him? You watch all of his interviews and he gives everyone a hard time. Closest thing we have to Paxman. He was also the person who should have taken over Question Time. I don’t watch it anymore because it has descended in stature under Fiona’s stewardship. Unlike Dimmbleby who fairly put them in their place if they stepped out of line, she just squawks over them.

There is a section about Defence in which they commit to 2% of GDP under NATO rules and accept they need a nuclear deterrent. I didn’t feel the need to go into much detail as this has droned on for long enough!

There were a fair amount of good policies which slightly surprised me (maybe i’m going soft in my old age) but as usual the progressive dross shone through and they proved they’re still the Lib Dems!

Fresh original ideas: 3.5/5

Practicality and realistic pledges: 2/5

Financially viability: 1/5

Responsible and sensible pledges: 3/5

Total: 9.5 out of 20

It was ‘half good’. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough to win you an election. Considering they have approached the platform to try and win a ‘majority Liberal government’ (Jo Swinson’s own words), there isn’t enough in there to create the sing great enough to get a majority of seats. I do believe that taking the Remain stand point will garner a large section of Labour seats and a large share of their vote, as the only true Remain ‘voice’ it will probably only equate to about 30-35 seats in reality; due to our outdated First-past-the-post electoral system. It’s a massively improved effort and there are some genuinely good ideas in there. They should use this election as a spring board to continue growth, maybe introduce some slightly more conservative policies and edge towards the centre to garner support from Conservative swing voters. That’s where their strongest position has been (I believe they won around 50 seats when they last did this). The lasting thing this manifesto has imprinted on me was it’s length. It was awfully long and drawn out and would probably turn off your average voter who is not normally interested in politics. I had to condense a huge chunk of the manifesto down and only just managed to keep this entire post down to less than 6000 words. If you decide to do your own research (which I encourage) you will see what I mean and will fall asleep before finishing it.

I hope you found this helpful, interesting and insightful. Next up on the run throughs is Labour. Make a coffee and get comfy, i’m sure things will get a bit off topic! Thank you for reading but yet again I would like to push for you to read the manifestos or at least the summaries before casting your vote. The political landscape HAS changed and it does mean that you might not necessarily be aligned with a party as you once were. Especially if you’re a Labour voter. I’ll say no more!

 

Conservative Manifesto Run Through

This is the first of 3 Manifesto Run Throughs that I will be penning before the election, as ever I will endeavour to stay unbiased as to give a representative and balanced view of each Manifesto, to give credit where credit is due and to pinpoint inaccuracies in them. I shall begin with the Tories as they’re the governing party at this moment in time.

Their first main point is Strong and Stable leadership, as I’m sure you’ll have heard this slogan by now. This has received plenty of negative press so I shall give a balanced outlook, what I think they’re trying to get across is that in this massive transitional period for our country, we need stability and certainty, this would only be achieved (in their eyes) by keeping the status quo and re-electing the Conservatives, so that the negotiating team in place can get to work as soon as possible in securing an amicable split from the European Union.

The next points they make are the big challenges that face them. The first being a strong economy, which to be fair the Conservatives have done a fairly good job at creating. Unemployment figures are down, economic forecasts are positive and investment post Brexit looks to boom. This is not to say that massive cuts have had to occur and hit some demographics hard and increased the need for food banks, but on balance the public spending of Labour was unsustainable and needed cutting as the Tories were left in a ridiculous amount of debt.

Their second point is about Brexit and the need for a smooth and orderly exit from the union. Also to try and create a deep and strong rooted relationship with the remaining EU nations, which personally I think there has been a massive irreparable rift caused, this spawning from our own interests and the jealousy of the other nations who secretly crave self determination. They also make a good point of stating we need to stay strong and united, aimed at the United Kingdom as a whole, in contrast to the Republican views of Corbyn who would like to see the split of the UK. Now is definitely the time to stay together and I like to see this message staged in this point.

The third point they make is to fight enduring social divisions. This is mainly made out to be about social mobility and making sure people aren’t held back by where they come from or where they’re born. I think it’s also aimed at second generation immigrant votes, the Tories try to include them as historically they don’t pick up those votes. I also think it’s aimed at people who will be here post Brexit and saying that as long as you work hard you have a place here. Even though they haven’t given a guarantee on it yet, I think this will be one of the easiest bargaining chips we have in the negotiations.

The fourth point acknowledges the ageing population and people with long term health conditions, expressing the need to find a solution and accepting the reality of it.

The final big point is looking at innovative technology and being at the forefront of the technological wave. I think this is wise as there’s a lot of wealth to be created from this industry and is still in its infancy (relatively) in the grand scale of things. It points out the need to staying safe and secure in regards to privacy, which is quite contradictory, being that civil liberties and privacy in regards to technology have slowly eroded under the Tories and so much privacy has been lost online. This was overseen by the Tories and it’s a slight slap in the face to include that.

The Manifesto then goes onto separate sub headings outlining viewpoints and the direction of the party and what they expect to achieve. They start by stating they want to govern from the mainstream, they believe they can be the central party and govern on behalf of the majority of the electorate, by making decisions in the interests of everybody, which in itself gives off a conflicted viewpoint. You can’t please everybody and not everyone will agree on things, I understand we live in a divided nation currently and maybe this is their way of trying to combat this but by contradicting yourself is not a good start. They believe they can bridge the gap between left and right, which is a risky statement as you can end up alienating your core supporters, whilst losing the undecided voters by sounding wishy-washy. They say they’ll reduce and control immigration, which yet again is a risky pledge considering Cameron made the same one and failed on a monumental scale. They want to defend our nation from terrorist threats which is a double edged sword, as on the one hand yes I fully believe them but on the other, funding has steadily been cut to our police over the period of Tory rule. Yet they were cuts that needed to be made, I return to my earlier point of labour’s massive budget of public spending (and borrowing) and having no way of paying it back. Whilst I understand the police forces of this country are stretched, you can only spread out the funding you have. Yes they could free up extra capital by scrapping the foreign aid budget but lefties won’t accept that or the notion that in order to pay for something you have to take money away from something else. Our budget is finite. Unless you borrow money like Labour and then you get stuck in the cycle all over again.

They wish to protect workers rights and develop industrial strategy to work better in favour of the economy. Finally in this section they state that they won’t drift to the right and make decisions based on what works, which is refreshingly realistic.

Their next point is the age old adage of governing in the interests of ordinary, hard working families which has become a catchphrase for all political parties as trying to project an air of caring for Joe bloggs and his family, and aiming themselves at a majority of the electorate. Boring, NEXT! The next passage just rearranges and reiterates all of the previous points to try and drum it into the reader, which is understandable if you want to learn what they actually stand for as most people you ask on the street wouldn’t be able to tell you the differences of what the major parties even stand for anymore.

The next section is entitled Our Principles, where they try and rebrand what it means to be a Tory, which is a massive turn off for people with traditional conservative views. They establish a notion that people owe a debt to the community and society which I’m at odds with, whilst I understand they’re trying to convey an expectation of a strong work ethic, I don’t think we’re born into debt with our nation. We’re born free.

They then set out how they’re going to achieve these goals in greater detail which I have no desire to deconstruct as I’m currently on my honeymoon, so I shall simply bulletpoint these with a brief explanation and whether it’s a pro or con for voting.

Keeping taxes as low as possible – freezing VAT (pro – goods and products won’t increase in price for consumers), increase personal allowance to £12500 (pro – relieving £2500 taxable income for lower earners), local residents can opt out of high increases of Council Tax via a referendum (con – too vague, if they slowly increase it, it won’t be classed as high increase so no basis for referendum), Corporation Tax to fall to 17% (pro – actively seeking inward investment from overseas post Brexit is a good think ahead however, Con – Labour have applied pressure to big corporations and called them out for not paying their fair share, so won’t sit well with low earners or students who don’t understand basic economics).

Increasing Trade – Lodging new schedules for the UK with WTO (pro – looking ahead post Brexit we’re going to need trade schedules in place to ensure a smooth exit and to strike free trade deals around the world and become a stronger trading nation BIG PRO), Creating a network of 9 trade commissioners to promote trade abroad and increase trade between the members of the UK (pro – self explanatory), push forward with UK export finance (pro – ensuring that no viable UK export fails due to lack of finance or insurance).

Wages – Increasing the National Living Wage to 60% of median earnings by 2020 (Con – this will back fire massively, as wages increase so will the number of redundancies as companies can’t afford to employ as many people, which in turn increases workload for workers, unsustainable).

Modern Business Strategy – Freeing up funds for research and development in fields of future technology e.g batteries for electric cars (pro – this will keep people on side who believe in renewable energy, Con – we don’t know where these funds will come from, most likely through Green levies or taxing the current motorist more. Which I can’t get behind!), A modern technical education for everyone (pro – any education made available can create social mobility, Con – being traditional I’d prefer that people are still taught in the old school way, as we can’t be reliant on technology for everything).

National Productivity Investment Fund – £23bn set aside to enhance certain infrastructures, £740m on digital infrastructure, big increase in spending on railways (no figure attached provably because of HS2) £1.1bn on local transport and £250m on productivity skills enhancement (pro – I believe that the money is well spent in this venture as the Tories are trying to keep with the times, you can guarantee part of the digital infrastructure includes rolling out super fast broadband everywhere in the UK).

Future Britain Fund – holding investments of the British people to go towards future funding of infrastructure and the economy, made up of profits of shale gas extraction, dormant assets and the sale of some public assets (Pro – if they can research shale gas and it doesn’t harm the environment then good, Con – selling off public assets automatically makes you think of parts of the NHS like buildings and equipment).

Support for industy – After Sir John Parker’s review of shipbuilding there will be a push for modernising and revitalising the shipbuilding industry (massive pro – we used to be world leaders in shipbuilding, creation of jobs all over the country E.g Clyde, Barrow, Portsmouth).

Support for Farming Industry – Grow more, sell more and export more post Brexit (Pro – on the face of it the notion is great as I live in the countryside and support our farmers, Con – yet they expect more but state they’ll give the same amount of cash to aid development, you can’t expect more for the same amount of investment, it’s unrealistic).

A Free Vote on Fox Hunting (Pro and Con).

Clearly setting out to leave the Common Fisheries Policy and exercise our control of our sovereign waters (Biggest Pro on here! No legal uncertainty will be made during negotiations, this is not up for debate! Preserving and increasing the fish stock which has been overfished under the EU’s common fishing policy, which introduced quotas and have depleted our fish stock, massively looking forward to our thriving fishing industry in the future).

Completely ruling out a divisive Scottish referendum and pointing out that regardless of the devolved powers given to Scotland, they’ve squandered growth potential and have lagged behind (Pro – nothing else needs to be added!).

As part of infrastructure investment, bringing Welsh railways up to speed (Pro – massively overdue, Con – Plaid Cymru will say money better spent on Welsh NHS, which is a fair observation).

Look to re-brokering a power sharing deal in Northern Ireland as soon as possible (Pro).

UK Shared Prosperity Fund – Replaces the funding sent from EU (which was our money in the first place) and redistributes it accordingly with consultation between Westminster and other devolved powers (Big Pro – shuts up all the Remainers moaning about ‘lost EU money’).

The Great Repeal Bill – EU law will be enshrined into UK law, so no rights are lost overnight, yet it gives parliament the right to amend, repeal or improve any piece of these laws. It also gets rid of the ball ache of sorting out 41 years worth of laws, we can slowly over time strip all the unsavoury laws out of our law. (Pro – get overall power of our legislature back and Human Rights Act will be reconstructed after formally leaving the EU, Cons – it’s a time consuming exercise, we’d still be signed up to ECHR for the next parliament, which I oppose massively but it’ll be reviewed in 2022).

In conjunction with our Overseas Territories, create a Blue Belt and aid conservation by creating the largest marine sanctuaries in the world (Pro for anyone in the world).

Continue commitment of 2% of GDP to defense as part of NATO obligations (Pro – normal humans like to be safe, Con – if you’re a Stop The War supporter or pacifist), (lol).

£178bn spread over a decade on strengthening our depleted Royal Navy, by building new vessels in conjunction with rejuvenated shipyards up and down the country (Pro – Brittania rules the waves).

An introduction of no payment of employers contributions of National Insurance for a year, if they take on an Ex-serviceman/woman (Pro – finally beginning to look after our serviceman upon leaving the forces, Con – too little too late).

Reducing the number of MPs to 600 (Pro – the chamber is far too crowded, Con – this lends itself more to the FPTP ‘first past the post’ system).

They promise to retain FPTP (Con – Proportional Representation is a more realistic and representative system and ensures as many people’s views are heard, it would also end the monopoly of the two party system, which is why the Tories and Labour will never back it, as it’s not in their interests).

The reintroduction of Grammar Schools (Pro – increases social mobility immensely so that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get a better education based on their skills and attainment, Con – funding for the education system is already poor so it begs the question where is the money coming from, it also leaves behind the children in state schools of mixed abilities, where they won’t mix with smarter children who boost attainment figures of state schools, meaning a drop in ofsted standards nationwide).

Cutting student loan repayments for teachers in their first year to encourage them to stay in the profession (Pro – it’s a start, however looking at the research, teachers in general can find easier jobs for more money elsewhere so aren’t incentivised to stay anyway).

Centralising all teaching jobs to a single jobs portal much like NHS jobs (Pro – it increases the effectiveness of getting current teachers into vacancies, Con – there is already a teacher shortage and I reiterate my previous point about teachers finding jobs elsewhere).

Cutting of free school lunches to most children in the first three years of primary school (Pro – they will receive free breakfast instead and low income students still receive free lunches, Con – very reminiscent of the ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher!).

Introduction of T-levels, a technical qualification equivalent to A-levels will most likely replace BTEC, which includes three month work placement as part of the course (Pro).

Breaking down barriers to public sector jobs based on attainment E.g teaching assistants can become teachers through an apprenticeship degree, healthcare professionals can do the same to become nurses (Pro – it eliviates the shortage of teachers and nurses, Con – have you ever had to live off apprentice wages?).

Reintroduction of pledge to decrease immigration to tens of thousands (Pro – After Brexit we should have full control of immigration and should for once be achievable, Con – Cameron made this pledge and failed massively with net migration ballooning, troublesome waters for Tories).

Further cultural integration through schools (Pro – forcing schools with one predominant race, culture or religion to teach basic British values regardless, to ease social cohesion, Con – too little too late, why hasn’t this been the pre existing building block to interracial cohesion for the last 60 years, since mass immigration started?).

There is a section regarding combating Islamic extremism which doesn’t outline how to root out and defeat it (Con).

Audit of gender and racial pay gaps in the workplace (Pro/Con – can lead to disharmony in the workplace and start on down the slippery slope of quotas rather than merit based advancement, which doesn’t help anyone).

Over the next parliament extend funding to mental health by an extra £1bn (Pro/Con – throwing money at things doesn’t automatically fix them, they need to improve diagnosis and speed of people being seen and treated, too many people suffer in silence in fear of not being believed, I have seen this first hand).

Ban letting agents fees (Pro).

Increase in NHS spending by £8bn over next 5 years (Pro).

In negotiations with EU try and ensure the 140,000 NHS workers from the EU can stay post Brexit to continue their essential work (Pro).

Government building new homes on its own property as part of its plan to build 1 million homes by 2020 (Pro/Con – it’s good they’re addressing the issue but it could include building on NHS land, the sooner they can address the real root cause which is immigration, the better).

30 hours of free childcare for every 3 and 4 year old (Pro – it’s a start, Con – we’re so behind other nations in this aspect, looking forward at the ageing population and the eventual need to replenish the population, the government need to be making childcare almost free until school age, we need to reward the people adding to our society by making having children affordable, they wonder why birth rates are so low!).

By the end of the year, 19 out of 20 premises will have access to super fast broadband in conjunction with their detailed digital plan (Pro – I’m still waiting at home for this, one of the last areas on the list I’m guessing!).

Introduction of comprehensive relationship and sex education to primary and secondary school students to include cyber bullying and online grooming (Pro – a realistic and important step in protecting our children online and in the real world, Con – weirdly still a hotly contested subject, some parents still don’t feel comfortable with their primary school age children learning about sex and needing to protect their innocence, maybe a minimum age should be introduced maybe 8 or 9?).

A random one but one with great potential, the digital amalgamation of HM Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, Valuation Office Agency, Hydrographic Office and Geological Survey to provide the most comprehensive map of the UK (Pro – can be used for more efficient planning of housing and creating digital maps of our land, this also creates an innovative tool for video games developers in making real world UK games, GTA London remake anyone?! Big Pro).

Overall I rate this Manifesto a very modest 8 out of 10. Very comprehensive and set out a detailed plan for governing our country. I felt it could have been shorter than 88 pages, as on more than one occasion it felt like they were repeating the same points. I also felt that on balance their Cons were easily avoidable but like I said, you can’t please everybody!

I hope this cuts through media bias and gives you the basic outline of what the Tories wish to achieve, parallel to this I will now write up the run through for the Labour party. Thank you for reading!

 

The Beginning of The Journey

So, here we are. Where is it, you may ask we are? We are still in a cloudy patch of history that will be remembered as well as the Phoney War in 1939. Not very well I can tell you. Yet that was the beginning of a journey our country started on. To overcome a dangerous threat and enemy, who at the time seemed to be more powerful, faster and larger than ourselves. I feel we are in a similar predicament at this exact moment in time. We’re up against an opponent with vast amounts of money, carries the sway of 27 nations and they have a bit between their teeth. They’re led by an ignorant power hungry man with Authoritarian views. They try their hardest to stifle free thinking and opinions that vary from their own. Such narrow mindedness that will eventually be their downfall.

I’m of course talking about that soon to be defeated Supranational Union of European States. Or EU for short… We have created the building blocks for the resistance to EU rule. We have re-ignited the wick of a burnt out, eternal candle that died out in 1975. Self determination was the catalyst. We are the leading light out of the darkness. We give hope to countries that are one their knees, that there is a way out of this. It may not be immediate, much like World War 2 but we can form an alliance to go up against the would be ‘Axis Powers’. The first of these will be a France under the leadership of Marine Le Pen. Much like Trump, I don’t agree with everything she’s put on the table. Yet she has the same vision and end goal. To take on the EU and have a self ruling France. It’s a larger task than ours as they’re a fully paid up member of the EU, but we will stand with them. There are a whole host of nations outside of the EU that want to do business and are extending olive branches even now. It would also be very advantageous for us to have an ally on mainland Europe outside of the EU, who we can trade freely with and create our own bloc to combat the monopoly of goods & services the EU has over Europe. Two great nations such as ours and France working together to create a new Europe of self rule and opportunity. Great things can be achieved between two giants of Europe who refuse to lay down. We’ll see where all the money comes from when we officially leave. That will be left at Germany’s door, who will be the final obstacle to overcome.

Of course others will follow us like Spain, Greece, Italy & Portugal, as their chances going out on their own are far greater out of the monetary union that has bankrupted them. The Dutch are certain to follow if Wilders wins this year. Germany will be the toughest nut to crack, purely down to history. We stirred up a feeling of national pride and used the tool of harking back to a bygone era of prosperity and dominance to get where we are now. The danger of sparking the fire of national pride inside every German might be counter productive to our cause, as it’s because of them we were stuck with the EU in the first place. They just couldn’t be trusted not to keep starting wars in Europe and picking on their neighbour the majority of the time. So between them and France they came up with a Union to end all wars in Europe, by literally taking away the powers of the nation. Basically they were put on the naughty step of world politics, and we paid the price for their poor behaviour. Whilst I sympathise with some nationalistic views myself, there is a huge under current of the extreme views flowing just underneath the surface all across Europe. We could, in the metaphorical sense, let the animal out of the cage by stirring up national pride in Germany to try and destroy the remnants of the EU. What we would be left with would make the journey we’re on, a wasted one.

However, the journey whilst it will have some dark and difficult times, twists and turns, trials and tribulations, it is a necessary one. Whether you like it or not we have set off already and there is no looking back. The clock is already ticking down. What we really need is the mental strength and resilience to fight the EU. We need to unify under the banner of the UK. Yet I still see the Remain side, sabotaging and slowing the fight down. We cannot fight a war with enemies inside our own walls. It’s time to get onside and fight for our country. In a world of snakes and ladders, it’s time to be a mongoose. MPs have a duty to their country, above that of their constituency. Their country voted to leave and now they try to debilitate the Government in adding amendments to the bill, that shouldn’t even be in parliament. I keep hearing from voices on the Remain side defending their tactics, that the government doesn’t have a mandate to make the decisions and negotiations regarding Brexit. Well I don’t know about you but  I seem to remember that they were given a clear majority in the last election and have a mandate to rule the country until the next election. I’m pretty sure that is a mandate the last time I checked. I personally think that they’re jealous that they aren’t at the negotiating table and that the ones on the Labour side of things are too busy destroying their own party and fighting amongst themselves as they can’t create an opposition capable of holding the government to account.

Finally, i’d like to say that even though I didn’t agree with the decision to have a PM who was a Remainer, Theresa May has done a good job so far. The rhetoric that has come from her camp has been worthy of recognition. She understands that this is the direction the country has to go in and she’d rather be in control than stand back and complain. I think every single Remainer in this country can learn from her. She’s sending out the right message of just getting on with it and not making a hash of it. Now if a leader of a country who doesn’t agree with what she has to do, can accept and understand what needs to happen next, then there’s no reason the rest of you can’t. Even coming out with the notion that hard Brexit is better than no Brexit, she endeared herself to me. It was refreshing and a step in the direction. Remainers need to put their energy and concentration into the future. Formulate a vision of what you want a Post-Brexit UK to look like. Look passed the present and shake off the loss. Quite literally, you win some, you lose some.

Protected: Idiocracy Not Democracy

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Protected: ‘Equal’ Marriage – Irony

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Political Review

My final topic is the US and Europe.  This is in light of the rather hot and sticky situation to do with the EU referendum in the UK. I personally think we should leave the European Union for a number of reasons, first off why should we pay a membership fee for something we are not a full member of, secondly because are borders are completely open to any EU citizen which is something I feel strongly about and will come back to in a minute, thirdly we are being dragged down by our position that we are in currently, the ‘sitting on the fence’ not quite in not quite out stance that we have adopted. If we finally get out we can begin to establish ourselves as a major power on the world scene again and make Britain, Great Britain again. First off we should rule over our land and set the laws not devolve the power to the European Courts and have a similar system to America where we have a High Court of the land, much like the supreme court. We can set our own laws and can finally scrap ECHR which rapes our country every day. I believe in keeping certain aspects of ECHR obviously common sense dictates that we should keep the rights to a fair trial and not being brutal savages to prisoners etc… however we should do something about immigration straight away. Completely shut our borders as we are full already, anyone who disagrees is blind as to what is going on.

Truth is we should have shut our borders in the 90’s and it would have saved our once great nation from falling to it’s knees. First thing to do would be if a foreign national commits a crime and is convicted of it he or she should be made to serve the sentence in their own country and never be allowed back into our country, thus solving the problem within our prison system where taxpayers are paying to keep foreign nationals in prisons where they are treated very well and are even paid, where is the justice in that? It would also free up a lot of space in prisons and would stop overcrowding and also phase out the electronic tag which was introduced because prisons couldn’t cope with the amount of people being put inside. Next thing to do is stop all work visas and anyone renewing theirs which would free up jobs for British people, making a dent in the unemployment figures. I will continue this topic another time as I feel I could write about it for hours!

I will bring it back to the original topic at hand, will the US and the UK still have so much of a ‘special’ relationship if we leave? I tend to think not if what Barack Obama said is any indication. I personally think we are just a pawn on the international stage as we have a certain influence over Europe. If we leave we no longer serve a purpose of ‘getting your foot in the door’ of Europe and negotiating trade between nations. However I can see some positives, if it will suddenly cost so much more for us to import things from the EU as we will no longer be a member, we can create the jobs here to do it all ourselves and start up industries or improve the ones we have. We could also potentially find new partners in trade? We should also start up manufacturing like we had back in the 80’s, as we were quite the powerhouse back then before everyone went abroad to employ cheap labour but this could be the shunt we need to repair our economy by making our own money as it seems everything that used to be British has been sold off or merged into larger companies. We also need to look at our expenditure on foreign aid, and before you jump all over that I want to just clarify where i’m going with this. We still supply aid to China and India which in the current state of things are two massively booming countries who are more than capable of supporting themselves? Why should we give money to countries that are better off than us? I really do wonder if the people in power know what they are doing and where all the money is going? One of the only downsides I can see is that if we leave the EU, I think Scotland will leave the UK and gain independence which will be a big blow due to the small amount of oil that we have out at sea in the North sea in Scottish waters.

Everyone has their own views on what we should do, but I think as a so called ‘democracy’ if the people want to vote on something, they should be allowed to as we are the people that put governments into power in the first place we should get a say in which way our country is heading.

Protected: Political Review

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: