A Modest Suggestion Regarding the Formation of a LibCon Coalition Government

Well, the British people have spoken, and as expected they have delivered a hung parliament. Despite the protests of the print publications disappointed that the shameless political shilling they delivered has not translated into an absolute majority for their respective party, this is a perfectly legitimate result, and reflects the complete disillusionment with the political classes engendered over the last decade or so by scandals, opportunism and plutocracy. The Tories, presented by the media as the only true alternative to Labour government, were hit hard by some of the worst cases of expenses fraud. The Lib Dems were confident that the positive response they received from first-time voters and through the social networks would translate into a massive gain in the House of Commons - instead, although their share of the popular vote increased, they actually lost seats due to the diffuse nature of their support (something the Lib Dems have always suffered from, and which has informed their long-standing support for the implementation of voting reform). The tabloids have been quick to blame this on the unrepresentative nature of digital media, which they charge has once again proved far less influential than the print press. However, I suspect what will be revealed when more detailed statistics come to light will be that the Lib Dem demographic has dramatically shifted, skewing younger and more idealistic due to 'Cleggmania', whilst the media blitz by the Tory-supporting press has scared off much of the Liberals' older and professional base. In other words, the groundswell of support the Lib Dems gained after the first debate, propagated and sustained by the social networks and the blogosphere, cushioned them against a storm of negative publicity that would otherwise have killed them off altogether. The only party that seem to have come out ahead in this debacle are the Greens, who have gained their first MP. Even UKIP and the BNP, the parties many feared would gain from an increased protest vote, had a terrible night, with the latter losing even the measure of influence in local government they had despite fielding over 300 candidates across the country."

From the beginning of the campaign a hung Parliament has been on the cards, and I've been fairly consistent in supporting a Lib-Con alliance as the best option for a possible coalition government. Ideally the Liberal Democrats would have also taken more seats from Labour, giving them a greater voice in negotiations. However, the fact that the Liberals have come to the table, as one publication puts it, as a 'party humiliated', means that perhaps they are more willing to compromise for the sake of the country than would otherwise be likely - at present Clegg seems to be (quite rightly) holding off on making outright demands for proportional representation given that they did not receive an unambiguous mandate from the voting public. The possibility still remains that talks will fall through and the Lib Dems will turn to Labour, which to my mind would be disastrous - being seen to prop up a monstrously unpopular incumbent government, whether Gordon Brown remains at the helm or not, would forever taint the Lib Dem brand by association, and furthermore establish the precedent that the party may be called upon at any time to act as a spare tire for a discredited progressive government. The Lib Dems stood on the platform of 'change that works for you' - they are now honour-bound to implement that pledge by supporting the party that offered the most popular brand of change. To prop up a sitting government because they could offer more concessions from a manifesto voted for by only 23% of the public would be an undignified and undemocratic end to Liberal independence.

So, a LibCon coalition proving the most democratically - if by no means the most ideologically - trenchant, how best could it be employed to gain political advantage for both partners? A mere formal alliance may seem tempting to the Lib Dems, who could keep their distance from Tory politics whilst still supporting them in the (surprisingly numerous) areas where the parties share common ground: civil liberties, budget cuts, etc. However, to do so would severely weaken their hand at the negotiating table. My humble suggestion regarding the formation of a LibCon coalition is as follows:

 - That it shall be a formal partnership between the parties. As the representative of the party with the greatest number of seats and the greatest share of the popular vote, David Cameron shall become Prime Minister. The role of Deputy Prime Minister shall be reserved for Nick Clegg.

 - As regards the composition of the Cabinet, the Conservatives gained 306 seats whilst the Lib Dems secured 57. Accordingly, 17 of the 22 cabinet posts will be filled by Conservative shadow ministers (their true proportionate share is 18, but one of these positions will be claimed by Nick Clegg). The remaining four - to be chosen by Nick Clegg (excluding the Leader of the House of Commons, the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer) - will be determined by the share of the vote received by the corresponding shadow ministers. Which of the parties' shadow ministers gets the corresponding Cabinet job will be decided by the share of the vote: for example, William Hague could get the Foreign Secretary job, but only if he got a higher percentage of the popular vote in his constituency than did Edward Davey, his Liberal Democrat counterpart.

 - That the parties undertake to maintain a formal coalition for the next two terms of government, and no longer. The result of this proposition will be to render the next election essentially unwinnable by Labour. However, with the knowledge that the term after that will see the parties back on antagonistic terms, it's likely that a large proportion of Labour progressives will desert to the Lib Dems, putting them comfortably into second place, seats-wise, and certainly putting them in opposition after the next election cycle. However, overall the number of seats held by progressives will likely decline due to the diluting effect this would have- an outcome immensely favourable to the Conservatives. If this suggestion were to be adopted, a LibCon coalition could effectively put Labour out of power for a generation.

UK General Election Manifesto Rundown Part 3 - Labour

And so, in the spirit of leaving things to the last moment, we come to Labour, the incumbent party and the one whose manifesto gave me by far the biggest headache. Part of this was the content, which I'll get onto shortly. It's by far the most bloated of the three manifestos*, and seems to appear in at least three different versions on Labour's official site, each with a slightly different emphasis. Accordingly, I've focused only on the main points contained within their online manifesto - consequently, there's less points listed below than for the Lib Dems or the Tories. However, hopefully what's here is general enough to provide a good idea about how Labour intend to continue running affairs if voted back into power.
Much like the Conservatives, Labour's manifesto is jam-packed full of expensive initiatives at a time when the country is drowning in a sea of debt and even frontline services are under threat. Unlike Cameron's party, however, they have justified this by arguing that it's most important to support the economy now and introduce austerity measures only when it's clear the market is recovering. Labour has made by far the weakest proposal to cut the deficit - only proposing to halve it by 2014. There seems to be no recognition that if someone is suffering from arterial bleeding, the correct response is not to 'negotiate consensus to reduce the flow by 50%'. They also share with the Tories an odd turn of phrase regarding banking reform - the Conservatives want a Big Society Bank, whilst Labour is even more explicit with a network of 'People's Banks' based on an expansion of the financial services delivered through the post office. The actual goals of these entities are suspiciously nebulous, but will be obligated to 'serve every community'.
Now it's election time, Labour have suddenly identified £950m in 'back office functions' and £500m in quangos and central budgets that could be cut. However, Labour have already spent most of these savings via the long-term benefits they want to introduce, primarily in healthcare - including a National Care Service offering free care in the home and subsidised residential care, help for ten million pensioners, one-to-one nursing for all cancer patients and a massive expansion of diagnostic testing on the NHS. It's also evident that Labour sees private care as necessary to pick up the slack - one pledge affirms the right of patients to cancer test results within one week of referral and a (decidedly unambitious) maximum 18 weeks' wait or an offer of free private care. Citizens will also have the 'right in law to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs' for appointments. Unfortunately, as far as I can see this is basically just the NHS. Also adding to the burden on businesses is a commitment to even more paid leave - including a 'Father's Month' to be introduced.
They've also made a huge commitment to spending on education - including Sure Start, 16-19 learning, and free childcare. Labour is sticking to its guns on defending its record on education since 1997 - even though the vast majority of public opinion is that its heavy-handed approach to setting targets, centralising the curriculum, and limiting the powers of headteachers has done vastly more harm than good. According to the Labour manifesto, half of all schools were below the basic minimum standard in 1997, whereas now only one in every twelve schools falls into this category. However, its is conspicuously silent on the accusations of 'dumbing down' that have plagued the administration. Similarly they claim that 'teachers (now) have the status and respect they deserve', a distinctly dubious claim given that Labour policies have tended to strip away their ability to maintain discipline - most recently with the absurd proposal that students should be able to rate their teacher by text message during classes.
Labour has promised to get tough on layabouts claiming benefits - young people out of work for six months are to be given a job 'or training place' and benefits cut at 10 months. For everyone else there's a max of 2 years out of work before a job is guaranteed and benefits disappear. More and better apprenticeships and improved vocational education are promised, but as with the Conservatives Labour also wants ever more young people in higher education - with a goal of 75% ultimately continuing after 18, a figure which is not even remotely likely to materialise, especially given that in other news Labour has planned to remove the caps on tuition fees.
Of course Labour still has a 'democratic and accountable Second Chamber' on their wishlist - something one might remember as having been one of their priorities in 1997. Still, maybe they'll have more luck now both the other mainstream parties have followed their lead. Even their ambition to 'chart a course' to a written Constitution might seem more plausible now all three parties embrace some sort of constitution or bill of rights with popular input. Consensus too, they may find on their plans for a vote in Parliament on reducing the voting age to 16. No mainstream party currently opposes these apparent inevitabilities, which begs the question exactly how a democratic reform can be justified without a genuine popular mandate.
Some of the proposals contained within the Labour manifesto are simply hare-brained, examples of populism gone to seed. Consider their plan to support parents of young children from 2012 with the Toddler Tax Credit. At just £4 a week it's difficult to see how it could significantly help towards the upkeep of a toddler - it's not enough to feed them, certainly not enough to buy nappies... Or what about Supporters Trusts, a brilliant new scheme to enable communities to buy stakes on their local football clubs? But best of all is Community Payback, a truly demented policy that only serves to persuade me that whoever wrote this section of the Manifesto watches too much Big Brother. Under this concept, 'the community' would gain the right to vote on the work they want to see prisoners doing. Presumably one of the options will be 'fight to the death in the Thunderdome'. Seriously, wasn't this the plot to a mediocre sci-fi movie?
Labour's solution to the immigration crisis is an 'Australian points-based system' - which presumably works only if you actually know the person is in the country in the first place. It seems that Labour will attempt to continue to straddle Atlantic and European relationships, desiring to 'Lead the agenda for an outward-facing European Union' whilst simultaneously making a grandiose call for 'reform' of the UN, international financial institutions, the G8, G20 and NATO. Whew. And on top of that, the herculean task of 'protection of post offices and pubs' (but haven't we heard that before somewhere?). Labour's defence policy seems a little lacklustre - its most stirring statement: 'Use our international reach to build security and stability ... tackling climate change.' I await news that all troops in Afghanistan are to be equipped with ice-core samplers.
Yet there are things to like about the Labour manifesto. The independence and funding of the BBC are to be upheld, with more lottery funding for arts, sports and culture after 2012. Young people are to be given improved citizenship education (but what will they be taught?), whilst a statutory register of lobbyists will be implemented, banning MPs from working for lobbying companies and requiring them to seek approval for paid outside appointments. Less positive from the perspective of private property but no less high-minded is the suggestion that consent from 2/3rds of shareholders will be required in corporate takeovers to encourage long-term commitment to corporate growth. The only reservation whilst reading these points is - will Labour actually deliver, or will they break these promises like the promises made in their 1997, 2001, and 2005 manifestos? Perhaps seeing themselves in third place - or even further down, below UKIP and the Greens in some constituencies - has made them rediscover their principles. But do they deserve another chance?
Ultimately, even if Labour comes third in the popular vote, they're still likely to constitute the largest or second largest party. In the event of a hung Parliament, both Labour and the Conservatives will be seeking a coalition to build an overall majority. The general assumption has been that both sides will attempt to woo the Lib Dems as the only significant third party faction and Nick Clegg will be able to name his price for participation - proportional representation, the Freedom Bill, a rethink on Trident. But both parties have gone all-out in the lead-up to the election to persuade would-be Lib Dem voters that the party is likely to side with the other major player, as well as savagely attacking Lib Dem policies, even where they overlap with their own. With both major parties so dedicated to maintaining the bilateral status quo, are we being mislead when the media refuses to even mention the possibility of a LabCon coalition? Such a 'nightmare ticket' would have the strength to lock down politics until normality reasserts itself, and perhaps the two rivals would find more to like in each other's manifestos than they previously imagined. It would also be a de facto totalitarian state. Maybe it's time we started voting for the policies we want rather than allowing ourselves to be manipulated by the politics of fear.
---
LABOUR:

1.13 likes per dislike

Like(51):
Realise government stakes in publically controlled banks and introduce a new global levy to reform banking rules.
UK Finance for Growth - raise £4 billion (through private backers?) to provide capital for growing businesses.
Create one million more skilled jobs.
Modernised infrastructure - High Speed Rail, Green investment bank (?), broadband access guarantee for all.
200,000 jobs through Future Jobs Fund
Young people out of work for six months given a job 'or training place' and benefits cut at 10 months.
Benefit reform - max of 2 years out of work before job guaranteed and benefits disappear (workable?).
More advanced apprenticeships and Skills Accounts for workers to upgrade skills.
Clampdown on interest rates for doorstep and payday loans.
Up to 1,000 secondary schools part of an accredited schools group by 2015.
Claim that since 1997 schools below the basic minimum standard have gone from 1/2 to 1/12 (but has the standard changed?)
Claim that 100,000 more children leave primary school each year 'secure in reading, writing and maths'.
Claim 'teachers (now) have the status and respect they deserve' - dubious!
Will save £950m through efficiency in back office functions and £500m through cutting quangos and central budgets.
More and better apprenticeships, improved vocational education.
Routine check-ups for over-40s and expansion of diagnostic testing.
One-to-one dedicated nursing for all cancer patients and more care at home (but how will this be funded?)
Vague intimations that people will have a right to a GP in their area open at evenings and weekends.
Claim that 15 years ago 'the very existence of the NHS was in doubt'.
Tougher in ensuring value for money on the NHS - patients as active partners.
End to default retirement at 65 - 'enabling more people to decide for themselves' (hmm).
Re-establish link between Basic State Pension and earnings from 2012 + help for ten million.
Maintain funding on police and PCSO numbers, ensuring they spend 80% of their time on the beat.
Australian-style points-based immigration system, requiring newcomers to earn citizenship.
Claims crime down by more than 1/3, violent crime down by 40%+, risk of being a victim lowest since 1981.
'Golden decade of sport' using 2012 Olympics for national renewal.
More independence for major museums and galleries - more lottery funding for arts, sports & culture after 2012.
The 'independence' of the BBC upheld
Digital and broadband infrastructure.
Improved citizenship education for young people.
Statutory register of lobbyists - MPs banned from working for lobbying companies and required to seek approval for paid outside appointments.
Stronger local government, increased local democratic scrutiny of services.
Strategic Defence Review + more support for troops and veterans.
Affirm the drive to achieve the Millenium Development Goals for sustainable growth and combating policy.

Dislike(45):
Support the recovery now and halve the deficit by 2014 - and continue hemorrhaging money for years.
Encouraging long-term commitment to sustainable company growth by requiring 2/3rds of shareholders in corporate takeovers (private property?).
No stamp duty for first-time buyers on homes below £250,000 for two years paid by 5% rate on houses more than £1 million (eh?)
A vaguely defined 'People's Bank' - banks obligated to 'serve every community'.
More spending on Sure Start, schools, 16-19 learning and free childcare (and this money is coming from ...?)
Guarantee of one-to-one and small-group tuition for every child falling behind & a personal tutor in secondary school
Every young person guaranteed education/training until 18 - 75% to go onto higher education.
NHS - right to cancer test results within one week of referral and a maximum 18 week's (!) wait for treatment or offer of private care.
'Right in law to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs' for appointments. So basically the NHS?
'More services available on the high-street, personal care plans and rights to individual budgets'. Sure.
Access to psychological therapy on the NHS (I disagree - all NHS treatments must be proven effective in double-blind studies)
More paid leave - a 'Father's Month' to be introduced
Toddler Tax Credit of £4 a week (...) to be introduced from 2012 to support parents of young children.
National Care Service - free care in the home + a cap on the costs of residential care (this sounds alarmingly expensive)
Government Personal Pension Accounts to be introduced.
Police performance to be improved through 'online police report cards' and allowing failing forces to be taken over by better ones.
Repeat victims of anti-social behaviour will be able to claim compensation from the police or council 'who let them down'.
'Community Payback' - community will gain the right to vote on the work prisoners do (what the bleep).
Supporters Trusts enable communities to buy stakes in their football clubs (seriously?)
Protection of post offices and pubs - well, they haven't got around to it yet.
Citizens can call for a referenda to move to the Alternative Vote for election to the House of Commons.
A 'democratic and accountable Second Chamber'
Vote in Parliament on reducing the voting age to 16.
Parliaments to sit for a fixed term.
An All-Party Commission to 'chart a course' to a written Constitution.
'Use our international reach to build security and stability ... tackling climate change.' Defence policy at its best...
'Lead the agenda for an outward-facing European Union'
'Reform' the UN, international financial institutions, the G8 and G20 and NATO. Whut.
* As one might expect given that Labour have to defend their performance over the past 13 years as well as lay out their plans for the future.

UK General Election Manifesto Rundown Part 2 - The Tories

With support for the Labour Party at its lowest ebb since 1918, it's difficult to understand why, on the eve of the election, the Conservatives aren't all lined up for a landslide victory. Recent polls show them with a 7% lead or even less, with the result that they're currently expected to achieve a narrow lead over Labour but falling short of a majority government without support from another party (with the Lib Dems the only significant body that could be persuaded to form a coalition government). The third-party surge mentioned in Part 1 has hit the Conservatives hard - the expenses scandals has reflected extremely badly on both mainstream parties, but for a party in opposition, losing the 'mainstream' protest vote (the people that won't vote Green, UKIP, Respect or BNP but still want to punish the incumbent party) is particularly devastating. The excesses of Tory MPs have genuinely angered the vast majority, and the party's subsequent accusations that Labour intends 'class war' ring hollow in light of the discoveries regarding the almost feudal luxuries Conservative MPs felt the public was obligated to purchase for them above and beyond their salaries. Cameron's Tories have secured the backing of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, with the result that the tabloids have abruptly switched their portrayal of the airbrushed Tory leader from Blair Lite to hard-talking Messiah (reserving particular fury for Clegg who has snatched away so many Conservative votes - perhaps at the cost of the much-needed LibCon coalition). With their manifesto - 'An Invitation to Join the Government of Britain' - the Tories must be hoping that voters will prioritise policies over their MP's behaviour and where necessary hold their nose and vote strategically. After reading through their manifesto on the Conservative website, here are my responses:

First, congratulations to the Tories for producing a genuinely authoritative-feeling document, especially in print form. Whoever created the cover for 'An Invitation...' is a PR genius, as it feels like an honest-to-goodness movement manifesto and manages to shake off the superficial feel created by previous Conservative campaigns during this election cycle. It is an extremely voluminous manifesto - I summarise over 320 key points below - and as mentioned in Part 1 this does not necessarily inspire trust ('Well, they seem to have thought this out') so much as suspicions that they are simply throwing the proverbial mud at the wall and seeking what will stick ('That's a whole lotta promises. Most of those aren't going to be fulfilled, so how do I know the issues important to me are priorities?'). The Conservatives have paired the manifesto with a 'A Contract Between the Conservative Party and You', which outlines the core commitments the party is making - including more transparent/accountable government, immigration returned to 1990s-level, and the institution of a slightly Orwellian National Citizen Service as endorsed by Sir Michael Caine. 'If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years' time' is the contract's main sound bite. Because, clearly, a Labour or Liberal Democrat government would either put an end to democracy altogether and never hold another election, or insist that voters support them despite failing to perform... The plea for readers to share the Contract via social networks suggest that the Tories haven't quite gotten hang of the New Media, but do the more in-depth proposals in the Manifesto impress?

My specific reactions to the Conservative manifesto:

I actually found the contents of the Conservative manifesto genuinely surprising - and not necessarily in a good way. The very nomenclature of the Conservatives suggests that you know what you're getting when you vote for them, and I'm not sure that the Conservative core realises just how far the party has shifted under Cameron. The parts where I found myself agreeing with the manifesto were generally expounding old-school 'small c' conservative doctrines - cutting bureaucracy and administration costs, emphasis on charity and voluntary organisations rather than bloated government instruments, simplification of taxes and greater accountability for officials.

Other parts of the manifesto come across as, for want of a better word, leftist. The Tories want to establish a 'Big Society Bank' which will confiscate all unclaimed bank accounts and channel the money to community groups and charities. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here regarding private property - once money is deposited with a bank, it may use that money (responsibly, of course) to lend, and invest, and make interest, which it adds to the account. Over time the value of that account - both to the original owner and the bank that holds it - increases. The money in that account, however, continues to belong to the original investor. The original investor may have signed a contract stating that his funds are forfeit to the bank should he at any time fall out of communication - and whosoever signed such a contract would be most unwise, as it incentivises said bank to ensure that he does so. But if no such contract exists, the money remains his to do with as he wishes, even if for the rest of his life he never does business with that bank (no matter the frequency or content of the bank's messages and warnings - such cannot replace the original contract without the customer's permission). If the man subsequently leaves whatever might be found in that account at the end of a hundred years of interest with his posterity, said posterity is entitled to walk into that bank with the number of that account and ask for the full sum therein as the fruit of their ancestor's labour. For the government to confiscate that labour which was in productive use as capital for lending seems distinctly non-capitalistic. Similarly dubious as regards private property and individual initiative are proposals to force infrastructure providers to allow their assets to be used for the government's broadband network, and the oxymoronic Work For Yourself programme, apparently intended to make entrepreneurs beholden to the government.

Meanwhile, the language used to discuss the various National Service-style initiatives under consideration by the party is, as I previously feared, worryingly militaristic. 'An army' of community organisers is to be trained to assist in creating new social groups. The Combined Cadet Corps will be extended into state schools - the overt rationale is to 'provide a taste of military life' and encourage enlistment. Bafflingly, even civil servants will be press-ganged into volunteering in 'social action projects', transforming the civil service into a 'civic service'. Meanwhile, we are told that 'behavioural economics' will be used to encourage us to donate more to charity, whilst a 'new measure of well-being' will be created, emphasising the social value of State action. I am not entirely convinced that this sort of language would go down well with old-school Tories. However, these concerns must be wholly overshadowed by the fact that the Conservative party is now dedicated to 'establishing a consensus' for a wholly elected House of Lords! In Part 1 I explain why the Lib Dem support for these idea is misguided - that none of the three main parties support even a shift to all 'life peers' is truly appalling.

On energy, the Conservatives seem reasonably adroit, though the manifesto seems limited to incentivising wind farms and smaller-scale energy production - all useful, but as Kunstler's 'Long Emergency' begins to set in, whichever government is in power will need a much more integrated energy policy. At least four power plants will be built directly - though the rationale is environmental rather than capacity-based. Supply guarantees will be imposed on the gas and electricity markets - presumably subsidising ever-more expensive oil for conventional plants, a sensible move as long as it's paired with an aggressive move towards other energy sources and not just treated as a band-aid. Unlike the Lib Dem manifesto, the Tories don't rule out new nuclear power - but make it very clear that any new plants will receive no public subsidy. This is to my mind almost as naïve as banning them altogether - what is needed is a massive programme of nuclear expansion, if necessary raising taxes considerably to pay for it as a national network. Otherwise it's difficult to see how the government is going to keep the lights on. The only other suggestion the Tories put forward on energy is to force energy providers to include reams of energy use data (presumably gathered from the sinister-sounding 'smart meters') and an appeal to switch to a cheaper tariff with every bill.

The Manifesto's suggestions as to how greater integration can be achieve in society are generally sensible, and I'm impressed that despite apparently embracing Blair-style spin politics they were still able to suggest measures which are likely to face a broad front of opposition: speaking English to be a 'priority' (but unlike the Lib Dem manifesto, seemingly not a requirement) for all communities, English History to be a core requirement in schools (though I wonder what the 'proper narrative' of British history will be), greater recognition for English holidays, and stricter enforcement of the law regarding religious courts. The West Lothian Question is resolved reasonably elegantly by proposing that issues only affecting 'England and Wales' be passed only with the 'consent' of their MPs - which gets the job done without overtly creating an English Parliament, which I feel is likely to presage the dissolution of the UK.

As the global financial crisis has deepened, people are no longer confident that spending our way out - at least through state initiatives - is the best way forward. A major part of Cameron's platform has been an appeal to the public's appetite for austerity measures. However, as the Conservative campaign has developed, onlookers have noted that they've protected so many areas from cuts that it's hard to understand where they hope to trim the necessary fat. The manifesto only deepens these concerns, containing as it does literally dozens of hugely expensive new projects with little or no indication as to what is to be cut to fund them. The manifesto commits to 'reduc(ing) the deficit' - when what is really needed is to create a budget surplus with which Britain can begin to pay down its crippling debts - however it also promises:

• Real-terms annual increases in health spending every single year.
• An increase in international aid spending to 0.7% of gross national income, whilst giving 'people in poor countries' equal say as to how the aid is spent (if the crisis worsens expect this to be the lead cause of a violent revolution).
• £500 million to tackle malaria (presumably ignoring DDT, the only real solution to the disease) worldwide.
• Inheritance tax to be scrapped for all but millionaires.
• Stamp duty threshold to be raised to £250,000, taking 9/10 first-time buyers out of the tax permanently.
• More Children's Centres to be built across the country.
• Abolish bin taxes, bring back weekly collections nationwide.
• Flexible parental leave, including the option for both parents to take time off simultaneously.
• Right to flexible working for every parent with a child under eighteen.
• Flexible working for everyone in the public sector.
• 'Expert career advice' in every secondary school and college, plus a new careers service for adults.
• Free nursery care for all preschool children.
• Every home to receive £6,500 of energy improvement measures.

I doubt that even the most brutal axeman could cut enough waste to fund these measures without provoking vast rolling general strikes. The Conservatives claim they will spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than the Labour plan, but fail to make any definite promises as to how they will attain this figure.

The Conservatives have long been opposed to some of the more egregious aspects of Labour's march towards a police state - e.g. ID cards, which they pledge to scrap in this manifesto. They also promise to 'roll back' the surveillance state, but it's hard to see how this will be done, short of tearing down CCTV across the country. The only other definite civil liberties-based pledge they make is that innocent people will be allowed to 'reclaim' their DNA from the DNA database - a phrasing that suggests it will require active participation on the part of the cleared individual to get their DNA removed. Like the Lib Dems they commit to more data protection, but make absolutely no reference to the Digital Economy Bill, the enforcement of which would inevitably remove all expectation of data privacy in the UK. Somewhat alarmingly, they will seek a 'full opt-out' from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and would replace the Human Rights Act with a 'UK Bill of Rights'.

The Conservative approach to foreign affairs is a little difficult to understand. On the one hand they will base their policy on 'a belief in freedom, human rights and democracy' - but are 'sceptical about grand utopian schemes'. They seek to 'act with moral authority' (meaningless pap if ever it existed) and 'support liberal values and human rights' - but at the same time want a 'strong and effective relationship with China', one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. As one might gather from the National Service nostalgia evident in the manifesto's social pledges, the current Conservative party is strongly pro-military, and this is reflected in their policy on defence. They commit to matching defence resources and commit to a Strategic Defence and Security review. They want to replace the aging Trident with a new submarine-based nuclear deterrent, and increase funding for army materiele. Troops under a Conservative government can expect more R&R, a dedicated military ward in every hospital if they get injured, superior voting rights to ensure they can exercise their franchise whilst on tour, a doubled operational bonus, more medals, automatic inclusion of their children in a pupil premium, and an automatic scholarship for their children should they be killed on active duty. Whilst many of these measures (with perhaps the exception of the automatic pupil premium for children of servicepersons) are sensible, they are also hugely expensive and continue to reinforce concerns that the Conservative Party simply can't commit to cuts. A large part of the Conservative budget centres around 25% savings on the operation of the MoD, but as it stands that would easily be eaten up by their military spending commitments.

Some of the language in the manifesto seems carefully ambiguous. Consider the following: the Conservative party will 'Outlaw the offence of inciting homophobic hatred'. What does that even mean? Will they abolish the offence, inkeeping with their stance against 'political correctness'? One might think so - however, another (rather bizarre) pledge will allow people with 'historic convictions for consensual gay sex to have those convictions removed', a clear indication that the Tories are courting the gay vote (to the best of my knowledge no other person convicted of a crime is entitled to have their record wiped clean if the law changes). So either the manifesto is schizophrenic on this issue or just plain poorly written.

The Conservatives have historically been EU-sceptics, and thankfully the manifesto remains true to this viewpoint. Taking a leaf out of the German playbook, Cameron proposes a 'United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill' that will affirm British authority over EU law within its territory. 'Ratchet clauses' in EU membership will be subject to Parliamentary approval (significantly less ambitious than the Lib Dem commitment to a plebiscite for each major change in Britain's relationship with the EU, but possibly more believable given British policians' record on delivering referendums). Broader 'protection against EU judges' is hailed, with the promise that only British authorities would be able to initiate criminal prosecutions. More concerningly, the Conservatives want to scrap the Working Time Directive, even though an opt-out is already possible in Britain for individual workers - which will almost certainly mean an extension of the already tenuous 9-5 working day for millions.

Contrary to tabloid suggestions that immigration is the 'great unspoken issue' in this election, Cameron has been putting it at the forefront of his attacks on Brown. However, the manifesto is cagey about how exactly his vaunted return to 1990s-level immigration will be achieved. The proposal to tighten up the student visa system will account for some reduction, but worryingly there is no mention of how migration within the EU will be controlled at all (indeed, it's difficult to see how even the most EU-phobic party could now limit EU migration without substantial withdrawal from membership). There will be an annual limit ... on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants. And there will be an English language test ... for anyone coming from outside the EU. Those voting for the Conservatives in the belief they will institute a strict quota system may discover that as regards Polish, Czech, Romanian or shortly Turkish migrants Cameron has no plan or capability to limit their numbers.

The Work Programme is the Conservative answer to both the current unemployment crisis and long-term tabloid concerns about benefits freeloaders and entitlement culture - it's also the only programme in the manifesto that spells out where its funding will come from (namely, by gutting Labour's New Deal and Train to Gain schemes). The proposal is to combine all current assistance provided by the government - including Incapacity Benefit - into a single one-side-fits all programme, where the emphasis will be 'back-to-work'. Although the manifesto includes a pledge that those who cannot work due to disability 'continue to receive unconditional support', all those currently on Incapacity will be re-assessed, and it's likely that a lot of those previously considered elegible will be told they should start seeking work. Those suffering from mental ill health look to be specifically targeted by the scheme, given that the manifesto explicitly includes a pledge that the Access to Public Life Fund will be used to oppose mental health discrimination in employment. Small and medium-sized businesses will be paid £2,000 per head to hire new apprentices - an extension of the current 'work trials' scheme which I personally view as a gross betrayal of the British worker's right to receive pay for their labour, although any measure that creates more apprenticeships is ultimately going to have a positive impact. Unemployment benefits will be privatised - the companies running the scheme will only be paid when someone gets a job. Unfortunately, this is likely to lead to even more pressure on overqualified people to accept minimum wage or labouring positions. Despite Tory warnings about the Labour 'nanny state', a lot of emphasis is placed on service, mentoring, and training schemes - including the establishment of 'Service Academies' and 'Work Clubs', with young people asked to re-train for a different career after 6 months of unemployment.

Lastly, does the Conservative manifesto show the fingerprints of their big business donors? Most notoriously the two media colossi Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere have been persuaded to put aside their differences and convert their publications into what can only be described as campaign propaganda. Such wide-ranging support doesn't come without a price tag, and one might expect the Conservative agenda to include hints that they will tend to favour the interests of their backers should they achieve a majority. Indeed, several portions of the manifesto appear to have been written in direct conjunction with Murdoch and other industry goliaths. A very concilatory approach is proposed regarding reducing red tape on businesses - including limiting the government's powers so that it cannot establish new regulations or regulatory budgets on business without removing an existing rule. In a curious piece of doublethink, the Conservatives would 'promote and protect a strong and independent BBC'  - by auditing its assets and, presumably, selling off lucrative contracts to Sky &c. A precondition of the BBC being allowed to keep its license fee would likely be to reduce or remove its provision of free online news, preventing it from competing with Murdoch's publications (due to implement paywalls this June). An interesting suggestion in the manifesto is the creation of 'commercially viable local TV stations' - potentially similar to the US model. If successful this would create a lot more entry-level jobs in the media - however, one can't help wondering if the party has already promised that these local stations will be operated under the aegis of Murdoch's News International. The statement that local media ownership rules will be 'amended' tends to support the idea that this isn't going to favour independent journalism. No mention at all is made in the manifesto of the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which enshrines Internet censorship and digital surveillance as Government policy. Indeed, from my discussions with two Tory MPs regarding the legislation, it would appear that their only real objections to the Bill were that it didn't go far enough! For me this is one of the most critical issues of the day and to find absolutely no reference to copyright law or the rights of content creators and consumers in the Conservative manifesto is deeply disappointing.

Later today - the Labour manifesto.

---

My raw analysis of the Conservative manifesto - as in Part 1, I've grouped the policies into personal 'likes' and 'dislikes', representing not necessarily statements I agree or disagree with but also tough measures I consider necessary, places where I detect a note of falseness or evasion, etc. I've also added some personal comments explaining my positioning of a particular item or expressing my annoyance at self-contradictory or absurd material.

CONSERVATIVES:1.54 likes for every dislike
Like (196):
Fair deal on grants for charities and voluntary organisations providing public services.
Cut bureaucracy and paperwork on charities and make Gift Aid easier to use.
Enable parents to open new schools, let neighbours take over local ameneties, make police more accountable.
Cut down on admin costs on the National Lottery and make sure 'more' money goes to good causes.
Reduce red tape on businesses and establish 'one in one out' rule for new regulation and regulatory budgets.
Reduce the number of forms needed to register a new business.
Simplify business taxes & create a Office of Tax Simplification
Extend government contracts to small and medium-sized businesses. Target is 25% of contracts.
Implement Dyson's recommendations to boost science and engineering to make Britain the leading high-tech exporters in Europe.
Make small business relief automatic.
Create more diverse sources of available credit for small/medium businesses.
Cut the number of MPs by 10%
Reduce discrepancies between constituency electoral sizes.
Restore integrity of the ballot and make MPs more accountable to voters.
New rules on lobbying and tougher restrictions on ex-Ministers.
Cap on donations and broad reform on Party funding. End of the 'big donor' era.
Local reform - public can veto excessive council tax rises and demand local elections. Citizens can table legislation (well, maybe not this bit)
West Lothian Question resolved by ensuring issues only affecting England and Wales can only be 'passed with the consent' of their MPs.
Create four carbon capture/storage equipped power plants.
Deliver an offshore electricity grid.
Make wind farms more competitive.
Incentives for smaller-scale energy generation.
Impose supply guarantees on the gas and electricity markets.
New nuclear power - but see below.
Green Deal - every home up to £6,500 of energy improvement measures paid for out of fuel bill savings (i.e. tax?).
Post Office Card Account to be reformed on energy.
Challenges 'multiculturalism' and uncontrolled immigration - clear strategy for national immigration.
English a 'priority' for all communities - but not a requirement?
History a core requirement in schools (but what will the 'proper narrative' of British history be?)
Faith, voluntary and charitable groups to be supported on effectiveness
Greater recognition for St. George's Day.
'Unacceptable cultural practices' to be 'tackled'. Religious courts must act in accordance with Arbitration Act.
Reduce barriers to business growth and creative incentives for rural development.
Lift burden of unnecessary paperwork and inspections for British farmers.
Press for CAP reforms to improve sustainability of UK farming (hope to see topsoil depletion addressed)
Honest Food Campaign - improve honesty of food labelling.
Public procurement - schools and hospitals to serve British food.
Independent supermarket ombudsman to support both farmers and consumers.
More detailed data about crime in your area.
Make Britain European hub for high-tech, digital and creative.
Create a system of commercially viable local TV stations.
Nationwide 'superfast' broadband by 2017.
Match defence resources & commit to a Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Replace Trident and maintain the submarine-based nuclear deterrent.
NATO to remain cornerstone of defence.
Make 25% savings in running of the MoD.
Maximise troops' R&R
Dedicated military ward for injured servicepersons
Change rules for service voting legislation to ensure troops can votes
Scholarship for children of servicemen and women killed on active duty (unlike generic suggestion below, this is fair)
Review medal award scheme.
Cut waste without damaging frontline services. Plan to spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than Labour plan
One year public sector pay freeze in 2011.
State pension age to rise sooner.
No more tax credits to families over £50,000
Child Trust Fund spending scrapped for all but poorest third.
Cap public sector pensions at £50,000
5% pay cut for Ministers followed by 5 year freeze.
Reform central gov and public services for higher productivity.
Financial discipline on civil service employment contracts and implement performance targets for senior civil servants.
Restore a savings culture and encourage retirement savings
Auto-enrolment into pensions for those on middle and lower incomes
Reverse over longer term the effects of the 1997 abolition of the divident tax credit for pension funds.
Consumer Protection Agency for consumer finance - free national finance advice service. Caps excessive store card interest rates, etc.
50p tax rate to stay on the rich and ask many public sector workers to accept a pay freeze.
Reform banking system. Bank of England to have more power to ensure financial stability. FSA to be abolished.
Depositors to be property protected from risky bank activities. Bank of England empowered to impose higher standards of care.
Crackdown on bank bonuses - cash paid out to be put onto banks' balance sheets to support new lending.
Responsibility Deal on waste for producers - but voluntary.
Improve flood defences and prevent more unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.
Maintain national Green Belt and AONB protection.
Work to reduce litter.
National tree planting campaign.
Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to encourage sustainable fishing practice.
Marine Conservation Zones - but will they affect the fishing industry?
EU should remain association of member countries - no federal Europe.
Legislation to forbid the government to hand over power to supernational organisations without a referendum (e.g. scrapping pound).
United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill - ultimate authority for laws stays in Britain.
Use of 'ratchet clauses' subject to Parliamentary approval. No European Public Prosecutor.
Restore national control over business and public service legislation - e.g. Working Time Directive.
Broader protection against EU judges - only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.
Open a new generation of good, small schools with small class sizes.
Link basic State pension to earnings, protect winter fuel payment, free bus passes and free TV Licenses
Freeze Council Tax for two years
Reform admin of tax credits to reduce fraud and overpayments.
More info and advice to parents, more stable funding for relationship councelling.
Review of family law for greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents.
Clampdown on inappropriate advertising to children, ban on advertising and vending machines in schools.
National Security Council to integrate foreign, defence, energy, home and international development.
Commitment to transatlantic alliance and focus on non-proliferation.
Reform of the United Nations
Healthcare to remain free at point of use and available based on need not ability to pay - but Conservative MPs think otherwise.
More transparency for the NHS.
Patients more right to choose GP.
Cut NHS bureaucracy (combined two points as, insultingly, they're the same thing)
Access to a GP guaranteed from 8am to 8pm seven days a week.
Voluntary insurance system so people are no longer forced to sell their homes.
Abolish HIPs.
Accurate homelessness counts & homelessness as a Ministerial responsibility.
Reward councils for building more homes and promoting local economic growth by allowing them to keep more council tax & business rates.
Local Housing trusts to protect character of neighbourhoods and villages.
Stronger powers for councils to protect 'garden grabbing' and infill development in suburbs. More family homes with gardens.
Abolish regional planning. But will responsibility now be on local communities to protect the Green Belt?
Abolish Infrastruct Planning Commission. Return power to Secretary of State.
High-speed rail scheme to be authorised.
Abolish state powers to seize private homes.
Rein in powers of entry - e.g. council tax inspectors' right to enter your home.
Reduce net immigration to level of 1990s.
Annual limit on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants (but what about EU migrants?)
Dedicated Border Police Force
Tighten up student visa system.
Promote integration - English language test for anyone coming from outside the EU (but what about EU migrants?)
Independent Aid watchdog to monitor performance of international aid.
Results-based aid - money to be handed to governments only where it will make the biggest difference.
Conflict resolution to be given more importance in foreign policy.
New Deals and Train to Gain will have funding stripped away and reallocated to the Work Programme.
End the couple penalty in the tax credits system - paid for with welfare reform.
Youth Action for Work - funding apprenticeships and work pairings.
Work Together - connecting people with volunteering opportunities.
Incentive to repay student loan debts ahead of schedule.
Abolish tax on jobs created by businesses started in the first two years of each Tory government to encourage new entrepreneurs (and re-election)
Increase prison capacity to avoid the reintroduction of early release
Introduction of minimum sentences, after which a prisoner can 'earn their release' through participation in rehabilitation programmes.
'Roll back' the surveillance state (presumably they won't take down CCTV) and introduce more data protection
Scrap ID cards
Allow innocent people to 'reclaim' DNA from the DNA database - not automatic?
Scrap plans for a council tax revaluation and higher council tax bands.
Abolish the unelected regional assemblies, devolving all powers and funding to local partnerships of councils and business.
Increase transparency of local government - councils must publish online details of all spending and contracts over £500.
Allow councils to return to committee system, promote local ward budgets and allow local residents to petition for referendums on local issues.
Abolish plans for bin taxes, stop 'unfair' bin fines, and work to bring back weekly rubbish collections.
Support for the Sustainable Communities Act to devolve down local spending.
Review and consolidate counter-terrorism and security laws by Labour
Review the Preventing Violent Extremism Strategy to avoid radicalising Muslims
Ensure all pensioners receive a decent state pension (but how will it be funded?)
Give teachers more powers - abolish 24 hour detention notice, reform the exclusion process and give headteachers the power to ban items.
Raise educational standards - but remove political interference from GCSEs and A-Levels (?)
Move to a national per-pupil funding system.
Technocratic agenda?
Block plans to expand Heathrow and integrate it into the rail network instead. Block expansion at Stansted and Gatwick.
Reform Air Passenger Duty to encourage a switch to fuller planes.
Reform railways to tackle problems like overcrowding.
Electrification of the Great Western Line.
Empower the Rail Regulator.
Reform Network Rail to make it more accountable.
Moratorium on building on disused rail lines.
Stop central funding for fixed speed cameras, focusing instead on drugalyser tests, etc.
Crackdown on 'rogue clampers'.
Introduce a lorry road user charge to ensure foreign lorries contribute towards upkeep.
Fair Fuel Stabiliser regulations.
Create a national car recharging network to facilitate the switch to electric cars.
Partnerships between bus operators and councils.
Introduce an immediate freeze and inquiry into the Governments practice of back-rating businesses rates in ports.
Retain the tonnage tax.
Improve maritime training by creating apprenticeships.
Abolish 'many' of the Labour education quangos. Cut bureaucracy and inspections in colleges.
Delay the implementation of the new funding system for Universities and work with academics to ensure it works.
New strategy for tackling violence against women - e.g. preventative work in schools.
Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance to remain cash benefits. Individual budgets for disabled people to be extended.
Pledges those who cannot work due to disability to illness 'continue to receive unconditional support ... and will never be forced to work.'
Simplify assessment processes for accessing services for disabled children.
Preserve the Child Trust Funds for the disabled.
Stop the closure of special needs schools.
'Removal of the default retirement age in principle'.

Dislike (127):
'Big Society Bank' will confiscate unclaimed bank accounts and use the cash for neighbourhood groups and charities (erm, private property?)
National Citizen Service - a volunteering programme to get 16 year olds to develop skills and 'mix with people from different backgrounds'.
Promote the delivery of public services by social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups.
Train 'an army' of independent community organisers to assist in putting together social groups.
Transform civil service into a 'civic service' by encouaging civil servants to volunteer in social action projects (what the bleep?)
Create a new measure of well-being that takes into account the social value of state action (seriously, this is Marxism)
Use 'behavioural economics' to encourage people to donate more to charity.
Stop Labour's jobs tax.
Cut corporation tax rates by multiple pence, 'funded by reducing complex reliefs'. Murdoch, is that you?
Work For Yourself programme (oxymoron?) - will make entrepreneurs beholden to the government.
Work to establish a consensus for an elected House of Lords! (AAAAAARGH WHAT THE BLEEP IS THIS AM I READING THE LABOUR MANIFESTO?)
Introduce an 'emissions performance standard' to set a legal limit on emissions from ... power stations?!
Climate Change Levy reformed - 'floor price for carbon'.
'Smart grid' and 'smart meters' technology.
New nuclear power stations to receive no public subsidy (in other words, little better than the Lib Dem proposal).
More energy bureaucracy - every bill must include information on how to move to the cheapest tariff and energy use comparison data.
Combined Cadet Forces to be extended into state schools to 'provide a taste of military life'
'Tackle all extremism which promotes violence or hatred and challenge racism and bigotry in all its manifestations'. Meaningless drivel.
Rural communities to receive greater autonomy than suburbs?
More power for rural communities.
Address lack of affordable housing in rural communities whilst protecting countryside from development imposed by central gov. Seriously?
Lies about violent crime and gives the impression it has increased (without actually saying it).
Allow communities to elect a commissar who will set policing priorities.
'Amend local media ownership rules'. Hmm.
Require infrastructure providers to allow the use of their assets to deliver broadband (erm, private property?)
Promote and protect a strong and independent BBC ... by ensuring it is properly audited (and chopped up, and given to Murdoch)
Double operational bonus for troops in Afghanistan.
Include service children in plans for pupil premium in schools (the children of soldiers do not automatically deserve special treatment!)
'Reduce the deficit' - plunge into crippling debt more slowly!
Real terms annual increases in health spending and increase international dev spending to 0.7% of GNI (WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS YOU IDIOTS)
End compulsory annuitisation at 75 (it should be brought forward!).
Raise stamp duty threshold to £250,000, taking 9/10 first-time buyers out permanently (HOW ARE YOU FUNDING THIS?!)
Only millionaires to pay Inheritance Tax (MORE expensive commitments, plus this will encourage property 'snowballing')
Recognise marriage in tax system through transferable personal allowance (complicated and the government shouldn't be in this anyway)
Higher jobs tax threshold on employers - creates jobs but at what cost? MORE expensive commitments.
Floor under landfill tax until 2020.
Water industry reforms will 'encourage businesses and households to value this precious resource more highly'.
White Paper on protecting natural environment with emphasis on restoring habitat (at what red tape cost?)
'Conservation credits' - leave this to the charities you're supporting!
Tackle illegal logging ... in Britain. Yes, this is a serious issue that requires urgent legislation :(
Full opt-out from Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Improve Sure Start and increase Children's Centres services (yet MORE expensive commitments...)
Over 4,200 extra Sure Start health visitors (AAAAAARGH - you've just signed up another 4,200 public sector workers)
Flexible parental leave, including both parents taking time off simultaneously (stop this idiocy)
Right to flexible working for every parent with a child under eighteen (whut)
Flexible working FOR EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system (no - the government needs to get out of this area altogether)
Free nursery care for preschool children. (yet MORE expensive commitments...)
'Our approach to foreign affairs is based on a belief in freedom, human rights and democracy. We are sceptical about grand utopian schemes...'
'Support liberal values and human rights' ... 'strong and effective relationship with China'.
'Act with moral authority in Foreign Policy' - meaningless tosh counts as a negative, I'm afraid.
Greater focus on prevention to reduce pressure on NHS - in other words, more nanny state.
Increase spending on the NHS every year (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOObudget)
More single rooms in the NHS (expensive and meaningless - just scrap mixed-sex wards, which I don't see a commitment to do here)
NHS dentist for a million more people - free dental checks for five-year-olds (salutary but more expense)
Housing - 'an end to boom and bust'. Wanna bet?
Strengthen shared ownership schemes. Tenants can gain equity which can be cashed in if they want to move up ladder.
National mobility scheme for good tenants in social sector properties. Right to Move scheme.
Protect and respect rights of social tenants. - meaningless tosh at best, at worst Orwellian control freakery.
Seriously - NO mention under Immigration of controlling migration from within the EU.
'Moral and practical imperative' to throw cash at failed states.
Committed to spending 0.7% of national income as aid by 2013.
Give people in poor countries more control over how aid is spent - oh, and British people get a say over 'some' of the aid, too.
£500 million to tackle malaria (expensive rot - just give them loads of DDT and give the UN the middle finger)
Achieve 'ambitious, pro-development global trade deals' - why do I suppose this won't be raw materials for manufactured goods?
The Work Programme - one single 'back-to-work' programme from everyone unemployed, including Incapacity Benefit. (WHAT THE BLEEP)
Greater support to young employed - referred to the work programme after six months of unemployment.
Privatise unemployment benefits - only paid when someone gets a job (yes, that won't result in overqualified people in labouring jobs at all)
Service Academies in hospitality and leisure will provide training places and work placements.
Work Clubs - nanny-state 'mentoring' and skills training.
10,000 new University places. (GAH)
Replacing the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights (sounds fishy)
Allow people with 'historic convictions for consensual gay sex to have those convictions removed'. What? If the law changes you can't retroactively have your convictions erased!
Community Right to Buy to allow local residents to take over vital local services or venues under threat of closure (erm, private property?).
Raise entry requirements for the teaching profession.
KS1 Sats replaced by a 'simple reading test'.
Longer franchises to incentivise private sector investment - and reduce accountability
'Crack down on' (presumably this means 'stop') road works. Whut. Especially during the current pothole insanity this is ridiculous.
More powers to local councils to 'get traffic moving' - sounds like a recipe for a patchwork of unenforceable congestion charges.
Transport Carbon Reduction Fund ... with no encouragement to use high-speed rail. Useless.
More attention given to the concerns of cyclists (MORE?)
'Give full weight to the benefits of low carbon projects in cost-benefit appraisals'. Short-sighted.
Pay small and medium-sized businesses £2,000 per head to hire new apprentices (hugely expensive and open to abuse)
'Expert career advice' in every secondary school and college, plus a new careers service for adults. Sounds horrifically expensive.
'A Conservative government will follow a joined-up, common sense approach to women's issues and make our society fairer for everybody.' Waffle.
Support and will recognise civil partnerships in the tax system.
'Outlaw the offence of inciting homophobic hatred'. Erm, what does that even mean. 'Outlaw the offence'? Does that mean it's no longer an offence?
'Empower the police and courts to combat racism'. They already have power to tackle racism. What new offences would this entail?
Mental health discrimination in Parliament to end, Access to Public Life Fund will assist the disabled in entering politics (?) - bizarre
'Tackle the root causes of poverty and inequality' by improving schools, supporting families, etc. We've heard this before...

No mention of a simple measure that would maintain the quality of pensioners' lives - forcing businesses to continue to accept bank cheques.

Additional pro/con:
CON: Many MPs in favour of dismantling NHS.
CON: Backers will press for dismemberment of the BBC.

UK General Election Manifesto Rundown Part 1 - The Lib Dems

In recent days, Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats have surprised everyone by surging from their traditional third place to serious contender status - at least for the popular vote* - and even briefly topping the charts. But is 'Clegg-mania', as his rivals have charged, merely the result of voters being unfamiliar with Lib Dem politics? I decided to kick off this blog by analysing the manifestos of the three major parties, and where better to start than the unexpected newcomers (for all that they represent the last major branch of the Whigs, the ancient rival of the Tory party)?

I must give kudos to the Lib Dems for producing the most readable, concise manifesto of all three parties. Whilst it's easy to say that with no record to defend and no experience in power any manifesto from the 'third party' will amount to little more than an ideological wishlist, I found their manifesto more logically set out and with considerably less redundancy. Possibly this reflects the fact that Clegg is speaking to a much smaller tent than Cameron or Brown  - not just in terms of numbers but also in ideological breadth. The confirmed Lib Dem supporter is inherently more idealistic than the other two mainstream parties - voting on principle rather than tactically (at least prior to this election). In contrast, the other two parties must attempt to appeal to a much wider, more heterogeneous audience, with the result that the language must be 'toned down' to avoid alienating a key chunk of their base.

My specific reactions to the manifesto -

Despite accusations that the Lib Dems are 'naïve' due to their lack of governing experience, the Lib Dem manifesto was most explicit about the cuts it would make, and most restrained in the new initiatives it offered. They are the only party to openly call for rollback on the erosion of civil liberties under the last government (including the restoration of double jeopardy and, elsewhere, the scrapping of the digital economy bill). 

The heavy emphasis on energy policy in the Liberal Democrat manifesto is encouraging. However, their stance against nuclear power is foolhardy in the extreme, and if actually implemented as policy would likely result in a condition of rolling backouts across Britain as fossil fuels grow scarcer, possibly lasting decades. Wind and wave power do not have a sufficiently high EROEI to power a dynamic national grid alone - recently wind power in the UK passed the 1GW mark - less than 1/63rd of peak demand despite the billions thrown at it over the past decades. By contrast France produces 80% of its energy from nuclear power.*** The Lib Dem policy on greater wildlife protection will also hamper attempts to expand our wind and wave power capacity. Bio-fuel is a more feasible solution to our fossil-fuel dependent transport fleet than a hydrogen economy (which would require huge numbers of nuclear power plants to recharge the hydrogen cells), but Britain simply does not have enough farmland to refuel its cars on bio-fuel - even assuming a single mouthful of food is never again grown in these isles. Importing it from abroad is an option - as long as you don't look too closely at the massive deforestation and soil erosion the bio-fuel boom is causing in countries like Brazil. The 'rail renaissance' promised by the Lib Dems is not a bold or original idea - all three parties have some sort of plan for a high-speed rail network - but is absolutely vital if the transition away from the skyrocketing cost of fossil fuels is to be made in time.

Contrary to Tory claims, the Lib Dems do not intend to remove Britain's nuclear deterrent (South Africa would remain the only country to have voluntarily disarmed after developing nukes). Instead they plan to develop a 'less expensive option' - which could be a silo-based system, potentially capable of delivering a higher payload. But, as has been pointed out, is it simply the willingness to spend £1.4m a day on something that is essentially useless that keeps Britain on the Security Council? Since no-one in the UN, NATO, or the EU supported the integrity of Britain's territory over the recent iteration of Argentina's claims on the Falklands, it's hard to see why we should care.

The Lib Dems' policies on reforming the political and justice systems are by no means the least offensive of the three, but still merit criticism. The proposal that prisoners should work to pay towards a 'compensation fund' is not inherently objectionable - although not permitting prisoners to work for themselves to build up a small nest egg (as is currently the case) would inevitably increase recidivism. However, unless properly ring-fenced the money would easily be repurposed and drawn partly or wholly into the government's social coffers, adulterating the purity of the courts. The proposal to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber is both laughable and disturbing. Despite the infamous indolence of our Lords Spiritual and Temporal, they provide an important bulwark against political extremism. To my mind proportional representation (which the Lib Dems are expected to make a precondition of any coalition after the election) would be a net positive if only the House of Lords were preserved intact as a partly or even wholly hereditary body - all the democratic representation with any instability checked by the Lords. I also very much doubt that 'abolishing' the House of Lords is even possible, given the labyrinthine uncompiled constitution of Britain (in particular the abolition of the Lords Spiritual could be considered a direct violation of Article I of Magna Carta, which remains in force today and preserves the 'Rights and Liberties' of the Church of England). Ah, but here's the rub - the Liberal Democrats also seek a 'written constitution with popular input', along with a lowered voting age. What monstrocities this might produce is left as an exercise for the reader.

They have also stated that they believe it is in Britain's long-term interest to join the Euro, despite Clegg's recent back-pedaling - a referendum is promised, but we were promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, too. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrat support for 'radically devolved powers' to councils and communities - England is conspiciously absent from the list, leading one to be believe the West Lothian Question would become ever more urgent. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems seem to be taking the softly-softly approach on immigration. By making speaking English a requirement for citizenship they may well be able to cut the Gordian knot that has given the Tories so much grief (they have only committed themselves to reducing immigration from outside the EU) - the fact that they've openly stated that they'll be 'targeting immigration at underpopulated regions' (i.e. away from the South-East) will also likely help to produce the impression, at least in the Home Counties, that there's a significant decrease occuring.

The Lib Dem emphasis on more apprenticeships in farming and other vocational higher education subjects is commendable. However, they also pledge more places at University, an absurd claim given that they still hope to phase out top-up fees for first-time students and the present state of our Universities (where about a quarter aren't actually suited for academia anyway).

Finally, despite Lib Dem opposition to the Digital Economy Bill, they still see fit to include in their manifesto a commitment to '(take) action to tackle illegal file-sharing.' Even ignoring the fact that the most authoritative reports on the damage caused by internet piracy are covered with the fingerprints of lobbyist groups, my correspondences with two Tory MPs regarding the Bill failed to turn up any indication as to how they proposed to actually enforce the law. The most likely candidate is the legalisation of deep-packet inspection, which would at a stroke remove any expectation of privacy in the UK, most probably lead to an encryption key escrow or an outright ban of encryption over a certain number of bits, and which would immediately embroil the UK in endless, expensive legal battles with the European Court of Human Rights. 'Action' against file sharing must be limited to uploaders and private hosts, accompanied by an aggressive policy of moral education - not just for the millions who download music or programs, but for the content creators who continue to lock content behind walls and make it ever more difficult for consumers to enjoy legal content (e.g. through invasive DRM).

Next up - the Conservative and Labour manifestos.

---

Here's my raw analysis of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, with the major points on which they're campaigning split into personal 'likes' and 'dislikes'. This doesn't just reflect policies with which I agree but also where 'truth is spoken' (or conversely, where an attempt is made to mislead the reader), or where boldness and originality appear**.

LIB DEMS:1.68 likes for every dislike
Like (42):
Simplified fuel tariff/cheaper energy for responsible users
Enforce energy efficiency on all new homes
Renewable energy drive/energy independent Europe
Reform farming apprenticeships and enforce a supermarket code to protect agriculture
Encourage bio-fuel
Improved water management and flood defences
Banking regulation to eliminate irresponsible practice
Improve living standard for pensioners.
More apprenticeships and vocational higher education
End gold-plating of European Directives
Reform consumer law and make watchdogs more powerful
Cut all lower priority spending.
Scrap central targets for NHS.
Increase accountability in local government and give more control over where local taxes go.
'Rail renaissance' - re-open closed lines, build a new high-speed network, encourage lower bus fares
Block plans to expand Heathrow.
Tuition fees to be progressively phased out again over six years for first-time University students
Encouraging realism in the media's portrayal of women
More British influence with the UN, EU, NATO and WTO
Regional peace process in Afghanistan
Full independent public enquiry into extraordinary rendition + torture involvement + rules on arms sales
Better family housing for troops
'Less expensive' options instead of a like-for-like replacement of Trident. Not disarmament
Work to increase accessibility of scrutiny of the EU.
Scrap ID cards, freeing up 3,000 police officers
Criminal justice policy reform - evidence-based prosecutions.
Focus on recidivism rather than increasing sentences.
Reintroduce entry and exit checks on borders, giving the NDF the power of arrest.
Speaking English a requirement for citizenship.
Targeting immigration at underpopulated regions (i.e. away from the SE).
Proportional representation for Westminster, European and local elections.
A cap on individual donations to political parties.
Party spending at a local and national level to be capped during elections.
Tighter MP's expenses rules + transparency
Number of MPs to be cut overall
Freedom Bill - restores Double Jeopardy, abolishes character evidence, affirms right to silence, curtails surveillance powers
Establish right to protest and freedom of speech.
Data protection laws strengthened.
Ensure public sector broadcasting remains funded and free from interference.
Independence of National Lottery funds restored.
Upgrades to digital infrastructure.
Stop public playing fields and tennis courts being sold off.

Dislike (25):
No new nuclear power
Wildlife protection - will hamper renewable energy exploitation
Reduce relief and close tax loopholes on businesses (morally right but will punish customers)
More places at University (seriously?)
Job Centre removes the 'need' to claim benefit for months before schemes start - will forced unemployed graduates into unsuitable jobs
'Working with businesses to repeal red tape' - why not work with consumers?
Split Post Office network from Royal Mail and sell 49% of Royal Mail shares.
Promise affordable houses to rent ... but haven't we heard this before?
Scrap regional house-building targets
19 months of paid parental leave and paid childcare for both parents.
More patronising 'diversity' legislation, including classing women as a minority
'Making employers check for pay discrimination' - either a purposefully ignorant policy (it's already in force) or positive discrimination
20 hrs/week free childcare
Ending 'headline chasing' on honour-killings, gun and knife crime.
More cooperation with NATO and EU partners on military control
Lisbon treaty good for Britain.
'Community punishments' as an alternative to prison sentences.
'Too much violent crime' - actually violent crime has decreased markedly over the past decade.
All prisoners to work to pay towards compensation fund - sounds like adulterating the purity of the criminal justice system.
House of Lords abolished, replaced by elected second chamber (whut).
Written constitution with popular input.
Lowered voting age.
Radically devolved powers to councils and communities, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland assemblies.
'Taking action to tackle illegal file-sharing.'
'Strengthening school links with local sports clubs' - pointless and potentially harmful to the academic emphasis of state schooling.

Additional pro/con:
PRO: Have pledged to repeal Digital Economy Bill.
CON: Many members of party favourable to Euro.

* Although thanks to our current first-past-the-post system, even a majority of the popular vote would likely fail to suffice to grant Clegg a workeable majority - accordingly, most of the speculation around his rise to prominence has centred around whether his party would support the Tories or the ailing Labour Party in a possible hung Parliament).

** Or conversely, where a hackneyed and meaningless phrase is inserted to reassure but gives the converse impression. For example, the Conservative manifesto makes loud and repeated assurances that they will oppose hatred and support equality - something no modern political manifesto should have to do - leading all but the most unobservant reader to conclude that this is a problem for them. Accordingly, it went straight in the 'dislike' column despite being a statement with which I agree.

*** Peak Oil advocates sometimes assert that uranium is also peaking or that fissile materials are not abundant enough to support the energy demand currently being met by fossil fuels - without mentioning that availability has peaked because demand faltered and fell after Chernobyl. More reputable estimates have conventional resources (high-quality ore extractable with current technology) sufficient to meet the needs of human civilisation for hundreds of years.