tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/conservative-manifesto-16101/articlesConservative manifesto – The Conversation2019-12-04T11:55:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1276722019-12-04T11:55:01Z2019-12-04T11:55:01ZWe interviewed more than 200 people about the NHS – they’re angry at politicians, worried about its future<p>The <a href="https://vote.conservatives.com/our-plan">Conservative manifesto’s</a> centrepiece of “get Brexit done” links to its NHS commitments: with Brexit out of the way, the government can focus on other priorities – and the NHS is the first. The effects of <a href="https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/01/24/austerity-has-taken-its-toll-on-the-nhs-short-term-fixes-are">austerity</a> on NHS performance, alongside an <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglongerhowourpopulationischangingandwhyitmatters/2018-08-13#what-are-the-implications-of-living-longer-for-health-services">increasingly older population</a>, have led to longer <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/positions/nhs-waiting-times?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIztXUm4-V5gIVhbTtCh2pHAosEAAYAyAAEgJFB_D_BwE">waiting times</a> and <a href="https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/combined-performance-summary-september-october-2019">poorer service</a>. As in all elections, the NHS matters. In this one, the links between Brexit and the NHS matter too.</p>
<p>The NHS is key to the Tories winning votes from pro-Brexit “left-behind” communities in the north of England. Their views are seldom reflected in social research; they don’t join focus groups or answer polls. Our <a href="https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/law/research/directory/health-governance-after-brexit-1.827888">project</a>, with more than 200 street conversations in three northern English towns, gives some insight into how they might respond to the manifesto. </p>
<p>The prime minister, Boris Johnson, has already drawn widespread scepticism over an NHS funding promise made during the Brexit referendum. The manifesto promises “more than £650 million extra a week” – a clear allusion to the discredited weekly figure of £350 million on the Brexit bus.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304931/original/file-20191203-67007-1iqewxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Discredited promise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/558163009?src=86889dba-588e-4c8c-b87e-412ace2b8173-1-0&size=huge_jpg">Jakub Junek/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-protect-the-nhs-in-a-post-brexit-trade-deal-with-the-us-128020">How to protect the NHS in a post-Brexit trade deal with the US</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Almost no one we spoke with believes the promise on the bus. They refer to it as “<a href="http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/09/16/calling-out-brexit-bullshit-in-left-behind-britain/">bullshit</a>”, a “pack of lies” or a “complete hoax”. Mostly they don’t think anyone believes it, though a few admit that they did at the time. Some say that it would be lovely if they could believe it. They would like Brexit to mean more money for the NHS, even while they understand that <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31926-8/fulltext">it won’t</a>. </p>
<h2>Staffing</h2>
<p>People want more frontline staff, especially nurses. They often express regret that it seems so hard for young English people to become nurses. The manifesto’s promise of a £5,000-£8,000 nursing bursary may help, but student nurses will still incur debt in order to cover their fees. </p>
<p>Of the manifesto’s pledge of 50,000 more nurses, it <a href="https://www.nursinginpractice.com/professional/conservative-pledge-50000-nurses-manifesto">transpires</a> that 18,500 are actually retentions – that is, not losing the staff we currently have.</p>
<p>When we talked with NHS staff, they sometimes spoke of morale issues brought about by the effects of working in a failing service and of increasing control by managers seeking greater “efficiency”. More staff won’t solve this. What NHS staff <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/e1w8qx/what_really_happens_when_boris_johnson_visits_an/">want</a> is a meaningful discussion about where changes (and money) are needed.</p>
<h2>A question of trust</h2>
<p>Many people we talked with in northern English towns are sad, demoralised and distressed. They worry about the future of the NHS. And some are very angry. </p>
<p>People feel strongly that they do not trust Johnson with the NHS. One person suggested Johnson should be “nailed to the bus” as punishment for the deception that Brexit would mean better NHS funding. Others would like to see him prosecuted and sent to prison.</p>
<p>But there is an equal lack of trust in <em>all</em> politicians. They are seen as all the same “liars and crooks”, “sods and lying bastards” who “lead you down the garden path” then let you down. Neither party manifesto can overcome this underlying rupture of faith in the UK’s political system and feelings of disempowerment.</p>
<h2>Can we afford the NHS?</h2>
<p>The Conservative manifesto restates a commitment to the NHS being free at the point of use. The people we talked with are critical of having to pay for anything associated with NHS care, including hospital car parking. </p>
<p><a href="https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/rebuild-our-public-services/">Labour</a> has promised to end parking charges. The Conservative manifesto doesn’t go this far, offering free parking only to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/24/hospital-parking-charges-nhs-stealth-tax-delighted-tories-will/">some groups</a>, such as disabled people, parents of sick children staying overnight and staff working night shifts. This probably won’t be enough to persuade the people we talked with.</p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest surprise in our conversations is that many people feel that, as a country, “we can’t afford” their ideal of what the NHS should be, or was in the past. People said we need to take personal responsibility for our health, which chimes with the Conservative manifesto promise of a new strategy to empower people to live healthier lives. </p>
<p>And people also said that, because we can’t afford it, we will have to privatise the NHS. This is something many suspect Johnson is eager to do – despite his protestations to the contrary. </p>
<p>Labour will have to work hard to convince people in the north of England who think this way to embrace their <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d29b4cbe-0fa4-11ea-a225-db2f231cfeae">economic model</a>, which seeks to return to Nye Bevan’s ideal of a more nationalised NHS.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerA">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127672/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamara Hervey receives funding from the ERSC's Governance after Brexit programme ES/S00730X/1. She has previously received funding from the ESRC, European Commission, AHRC, and the Leverhulme Trust. She is a specialist adviser for the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. She was a member of the Advisory Board of 'Healthier In', which campaigned to remain in the EU. </span></em></p>The Labour Party has to convince voters in the north of England that privatisation is not the solution to NHS woes.Tamara Hervey, Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1275482019-11-27T14:54:06Z2019-11-27T14:54:06ZUK Election 2019: Tory and Labour cultural policies leave arts organisations squeezed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303971/original/file-20191127-112512-18skz5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Both parties have placed museums at the heart of their cultural policies, renewing commitment to free entry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wutthikrai Busayaporn/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid a flurry of manifesto promises over the past week, the UK’s two main parties have both made various pledges to invest in arts and culture. Labour has promised to invest in a <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/uk-election-manifesto-2019">£1 billion Cultural Capital Fund</a> to transform institutions in towns that have been “neglected for too long”. Meanwhile the Conservatives have pledged to fund an “<a href="https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/conservative-party-manifesto-arts-premium-secondary-schools/">arts premium</a>” in secondary schools and offer business rates relief for music venues and cinemas.</p>
<p>It’s fair to say that Labour’s promise has grabbed the headlines more than that of the Conservatives. Their so-called Charter for the Arts has also won the PR war, garnering the support of <a href="https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/11/culture-for-labour">hundreds of artists</a>, including celebrities such as Maxine Peake, Lily Allen and Ken Loach.</p>
<p>The Conservatives perceive the arts as “nice to have”, the peripheral tinsel on the tree of learning. This is despite growing evidence from the likes of the <a href="https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CLA-key-findings-2017.pdf">Cultural Learning Alliance</a> and the recent <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/creativitycommission/DurhamReport.pdf">Durham Commission</a> that effective arts education can foster creativity, innovation, empathy and resilience. It can also make children happier and healthier. Labour also backs a £160 million annual “arts pupil premium”, designed to fund arts education for every primary school child and ensure that arts and creativity are embedded in the curriculum. </p>
<p>It’s interesting to note that alongside schools, both main parties have placed local libraries and museums at the heart of their cultural policies. Before releasing their manifesto, the Conservatives had already announced a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-250-million-culture-investment-fund-launched">£250 million Culture Investment Fund</a> to support Coventry and the UK City of Culture programme, York’s National Railway Museum, the Cultural Development Fund, and upgrades to museums and libraries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arts-education-helps-school-students-learn-and-socialise-we-must-invest-in-it-122199">Arts education helps school students learn and socialise. We must invest in it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Renewed pledges to favourites</h2>
<p>Alongside its own Cultural Capital Fund, Labour is also committing to a UK City of Culture programme, championed recently by both <a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/labour-could-bring-tourist-tax-says-tom-watson">Tom Watson</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/dec/29/yvette-cooper-leads-call-for-town-of-culture-award-regeneration">Yvette Cooper</a>. Supporters of this policy cite the apparent successes of <a href="https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/01/02/news/derry-transformed-five-years-on-from-city-of-culture-1222901/">Derry/Londonderry</a> in 2013 and <a href="https://www.hull.ac.uk/work-with-us/more/media-centre/news/2018/city-of-culture-evaluation.aspx">Hull</a> in 2017 as UK Cities of Culture. Detractors, however, critique the flawed economic impact methods used to justify such investment and the potentially damaging nature of what could be considered a costly urban beauty contest.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coventry is set to be the UK City of Culture in 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Dorney/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In what appears to be an excellent week for the UK’s museums, both main parties have pledged to maintain support for free entry to national museums. This remains a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/weekly-poll/8938699/Should-Londons-free-museums-and-galleries-start-charging.html">controversial issue</a>, which divides both cultural practitioners and academics. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-hull-went-from-crap-town-to-city-of-culture-and-what-it-says-about-brexit-britain-86818">How Hull went from crap town to City of Culture – and what it says about Brexit Britain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is no solid evidence that free entry has shifted the demographics of museum and gallery audiences. There is, however, a compelling argument to introduce either a “<a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/303/case-study/trial-and-error">pay-what-you-decide</a>” system and/or an entry charge for international visitors. </p>
<p>Labour’s promise to redistribute National Lottery funding to more closely reflect ticket sales is much more likely to address the age-old problem of regressive taxation of the arts. It has justifiably won favour amongst supporters of <a href="https://64millionartists.com/our-work/cultural-democracy/#:%7E:targetText=The%20term%20Cultural%20Democracy%20describes,focus%20across%20arts%20and%20culture.">cultural democracy</a> – not least because it comes with a pledge for a more participatory approach to how Lottery awards should be spent.</p>
<p>Both parties’ ongoing commitment to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-sector-tax-reliefs">creative sector tax relief</a> introduced in 2016 by the former chancellor George Osborne is welcome. It has already boosted cultural production and offered a lifeline to the small and micro organisations that are often the real creative pioneers. But this will in no way compensate for the estimated <a href="https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/assessing-eu%E2%80%99s-contribution-arts-museums-creative-industries">£40 million per annum </a>in EU funding the arts and cultural sector is expected to lose after Brexit, compounded by the additional costs that will be incurred to overcome new restrictions on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jul/13/tristram-hunt-nicholas-serota-protect-free-movement-of-artists-after-brexit">free movement of artists</a>, both in and out of the UK. </p>
<h2>Flawed logic</h2>
<p>While many in the arts and cultural sector have welcomed Labour’s manifesto arts offerings, others have noted that the ambitious pledge to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/25/jeremy-corbyn-arts-pupil-premium-primary-schools-reverse-spending-cuts">increase the proportion of GDP</a> the government spends on arts from 0.3% to meet <a href="https://www.equity.org.uk/media/3370/equity_arts-policy-2019_final-web.pdf">the European average of 0.5%</a> in the last manifesto has disappeared.</p>
<p>Numerous reports demonstrate the <a href="https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/sites/default/files/2018-12/Creative%20Industries%20Federation%20-%20Growing%20the%20UK's%20Creative%20Industries.pdf">UK’s competitive and artistic edge</a> in the cultural and creative industries and their impressive growth rate – even in times of recession and austerity. Between 2010 and 2017, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossvalueaddedgva">GVA</a> (the gross value added) of the creative industries increased by <a href="https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/statistics">53.1%</a> and contributes around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/apr/17/arts-contribute-more-to-uk-economy-than-agriculture-report">£23bn to GDP</a>.</p>
<p>So regardless of political ideology, it would seem strategic to introduce a competitive level of mandated investment in <a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/cultural-sector-continues-grow-faster-uk-economy">the country’s fastest-growing industry</a> and to guarantee its long-term sustainability. </p>
<p>Ultimately, Labour’s manifesto commitments are dazzling but flawed. While ambitious, they’re less generous than the promises made in 2017 and based on some unsound logic. However, they do represent a step in the right direction. They also demonstrate a continuing acknowledgement of the vital role that arts and culture play in citizens’ education and general wellbeing, alongside the positive impacts they can have on our towns and cities. </p>
<p>While it is heartening to see both major parties champion the cultural sector and its socioeconomic impacts, in comparison to Labour’s pledges, the Conservative manifesto offers little new investment and lots of spin. Considered in the context of a pending Brexit that will cost the sector millions, neither party’s pledges offer much hope to organisations that actually <em>produce</em> art. Unless the <a href="https://www.equity.org.uk/media/3370/equity_arts-policy-2019_final-web.pdf">swingeing cuts to local authorities</a> are reversed these organisations are likely to be squeezed quite hard from both ends. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerA">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As Director of the Centre for Cultural Value, Ben Walmsley receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Arts Council England and Paul Hamlyn Foundation. </span></em></p>While both parties are championing the arts and culture sector, after years of swingeing cuts these promises dazzle but offer little hope to struggling institutionsBen Walmsley, Professor of Cultural Engagement; Director of the Centre for Cultural Value, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786342017-06-07T09:50:08Z2017-06-07T09:50:08ZWhat each party manifesto means for student voters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172445/original/file-20170606-3710-hnbax4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For students voting in the 2017 General Election, there is much to consider – with fees and the future of higher education featuring strongly in the campaigns and manifestos. </p>
<p>Political parties are keen to attract <a href="http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Students-and-the-2015-general-election.pdf">student voters</a>. Not only can their votes make a <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/where-could-students-impact-2017-general-election">big difference in battleground seats</a>, but they are also the potential party members of the future. With a UK student population in excess of two million, there are also a lot of them out there.</p>
<p>So what do students in England need to know?</p>
<h2>Conservatives</h2>
<p>Higher education doesn’t have its own section in the Conservative <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">manifesto</a>, but there are many parts of the Tory agenda with consequences for universities, students and graduates. </p>
<p>A big consideration is how controls on immigration would restrict access to student visas. This is aligned to Theresa May’s intention to keep international student numbers down. <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Universities-UK-response-to-Conservative-manifesto.aspx">Universities are anxious about this</a>, as fewer international students would mean a reduction in income, possibly resulting in course closures and job losses.</p>
<p>The party has <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/conservative-manifesto-pledge-cut-overseas-student-numbers">also stated</a> it would “launch a major review of funding across tertiary education as a whole”, indicating there may be changes to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-increase-in-university-fees-and-what-it-means-for-students-62985">existing fees and funding arrangements</a>.</p>
<p>A Conservative government would also make it a condition for universities charging the maximum level of tuition fees to be involved in <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-business-do-universities-have-in-academy-schools-50805">sponsoring</a> an academy or founding a free school.</p>
<p>It would also expand University Investment Funds, which provide finance to turn new discoveries into profitable companies or products – such as turning new drugs research into medicine. </p>
<p>This is to improve the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11625044/The-surprising-success-of-Britains-university-spin-outs.html">commercialisation</a> of university research, which is part of the party’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-uk-finally-getting-serious-about-industrial-strategy-71692">industrial strategy</a>. </p>
<p>The Conservatives would also fund schemes to get graduates to serve in schools, police forces, prisons, and social care and mental health organisations – so they can use “their talents to tackle entrenched social problems”, as detailed <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/2017-conservative-manifesto-in-full/">in their manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>And they also plan to <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/05/nick-faith-to-deliver-world-class-vocational-education-may-must-take-on-the-higher-education-establishment.html">link existing universities</a> to new institutes of “technical education”. These would be <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/6263479/Conservative-party-conference-Tories-promise-technical-school-for-every-town.html">created in every town</a> to deliver <a href="https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/12732-degree-apprenticeships-and-the-new-pathway-into-higher-education">higher level apprenticeships</a>. </p>
<h2>Labour</h2>
<p>Labour’s <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/towards-a-national-education-service">manifesto</a> places university education in their proposed “<a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/160515197224/labour-launches-national-education-service">National Education Service</a>”. This is basically cradle-to-grave learning that is free at the point of use. Labour points out that university tuition is free in many <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-finland-and-norway-still-shun-university-tuition-fees-even-for-international-students-36922">northern European countries</a>, and that average debt for UK students on graduation is now £44,000.</p>
<p>Labour pledges to reintroduce maintenance grants and completely abolish tuition fees – their biggest spending commitment, <a href="https://epi.org.uk/report/election-2017-manifesto-analysis/?yutm_content=bufferc267e">costing £11.5-£13.5 billion</a>. </p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn has also stated his ambition to <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/86362/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-write">write off existing student debts</a>. Abolishing fees has clearly resonated with the electorate: a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manifesto-destinies">poll by YouGov</a> shows it has been instrumental in tightening the race between Corbyn and May.</p>
<p>Labour’s policy is popular with those who believe higher education is a “<a href="http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/jeremy-corbyn-education-is-a-collective-good-its-time-for-a-national-education-service-labourlist/">collective good</a>” and a public service which should be free. It also means people <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40112033">may not be deterred</a> from going to university because they <a href="https://theconversation.com/poorer-students-arent-applying-to-university-because-of-fears-of-high-debts-78694">fear debt</a>.</p>
<p>The Labour Party manifesto claims: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But <a href="https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/applicants-uk-higher-education-down-5-uk-students-and-7-eu-students">data shows</a> that the number of people going to university, relative to the size of the 18-year-old cohort, is actually increasing – including applications from disadvantaged groups. </p>
<p>It has also been shown that the abolition of fees and the reintroduction of maintenance grants would in fact <a href="https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-higher-education-proposals-will-cost-8bn-per-year-although-increase-the-deficit-by-more-graduates-who-earn-most-in-future-would-benefit-most">benefit higher-earning graduates</a>. This is because under the new system, these graduates wouldn’t have to repay any money. </p>
<p>For this reason, the <a href="https://epi.org.uk/report/election-2017-manifesto-analysis/?yutm_content=bufferc267e">Education Policy Institute</a> says Labour’s plan is not an effective use of public money, as it will not help the mobility of underrepresented or disadvantaged students.</p>
<h2>Liberal Democrats</h2>
<p>At this election, the Liberal Democrats hope to regain some of the student vote. But their <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto">2017 manifesto</a> doesn’t try and win over students by promising to abolish fees. Instead, it promises to “establish a review of higher education finance in the next Parliament”. </p>
<p>This noncommittal position avoids a repeat of the politically costly pledge to abolish fees made in their 2010 manifesto, which they then abandoned when in <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ioep/clre/2015/00000013/00000002/art00007?crawler=true.">coalition government with the Conservatives</a> – although the party has committed to reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students. These were replaced with maintenance loans by the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172">Conservative government</a> last year. A move which has proved unpopular with many.</p>
<p>Tim Farron also wants to <a href="https://timfarron.co.uk/en/article/2017/1213339/farron-announces-nursing-bursaries-at-royal-college-of-nursing-speech">bring back student nurses’ bursaries</a> – which were <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nhs-faces-a-staffing-crisis-for-years-to-come-75426">recently axed</a> resulting in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/02/nursing-degree-applications-slump-after-nhs-bursaries-abolished">sharp fall</a> in nursing degree applications.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can students forgive the Lib Dems?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of particular importance to current and future graduates is the party’s pledge to stop the retrospective raising of rates on student loans. Student loan repayments are a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/student-money/student-loan-interest-rise-33pc-inflation-spikes/">growing issue</a> as millions of students and graduates are about to experience <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39577507">large increases in the interest rates</a> on their loans because of rising inflation.</p>
<h2>UKIP</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017">UKIP</a> pledges to restore maintenance grants. The party sees the abolition of tuition fees as a long-term goal for when economic conditions allow. </p>
<p>In the meantime, undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses would be free – provided graduates go on to work in these subject areas and pay tax in the UK for at least five years.</p>
<h2>Green Party</h2>
<p>Higher education doesn’t receive much attention in the <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee">Green manifesto</a>, but the party does pledge to “scrap university tuition fees”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Gunn receives funding from Worldwide Universities Network, the British Council (administering the Newton Fund), the UK Higher Education Academy, the United Kingdom Political Studies Association, the New Zealand Political Studies Association and the UK Quality Assurance Agency. Andrew Gunn concurrently holds visiting academic positions internationally. This article represents the author's personal views.</span></em></p>Who comes up trumps in tertiary education?Andrew Gunn, Researcher in Higher Education Policy, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/785792017-06-06T10:41:17Z2017-06-06T10:41:17ZWhy Churchill would have disagreed with Theresa May’s stance on European human rights<p>History teaches us that the clash within Conservative ranks between populists and free-marketers may be decisive in shaping Conservative human rights policy after the election.</p>
<p>Earlier in 2017, it <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-campaign-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html">appeared likely</a> that the Conservative party would make the UK’s withdrawal from the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) a centrepiece of its next general election campaign, despite <a href="https://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/news/why-human-rights-should-matter-conservatives">pointed disagreement</a> within party ranks. </p>
<p>The chief instigator was reported to be the prime minister herself. As home secretary, Theresa May had become so irate at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that she had called on the UK to leave the ECHR outright, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/european-convention-human-rights-eu-referendum-brexit-theresa-may-a6999701.html">expressing outrage</a> that the treaty “binds the hands of parliament.” In February, she <a href="https://www.una.org.uk/file/11615/download?token=4sYI3y1m">reaffirmed</a> that the Conservative government aimed to replace the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the ECHR into British law, with a British Bill of Rights, one that “will remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights found in the original European Convention on Human Rights”.</p>
<p>So proponents of the UK’s continued participation in the ECHR were pleasantly surprised when May appeared to reverse course, at least temporarily. As her newly-minted <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">manifesto</a> stipulates: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even so, other parts of the manifesto should give supporters of the Strasbourg court pause for thought. These passages, though not directly concerned with human rights law, announce a broader realignment of Conservative views on the relationship between the individual and the state. The manifesto says: “We must reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and instead embrace the mainstream view that recognises the good that government can do.”</p>
<p>This has been widely <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/theresa-mays-conservative-manifesto-buries-dogmatic-thatcherism">interpreted</a> as a repudiation of the free-market individualism of Thatcherism in favour of an affirmation of a strong positive role for the state in domestic affairs. In practice, the document retains longstanding Conservative calls for less regulations and taxes, while proposing an array of government interventions and subsidies in the domain of economic and social policy more sweeping than many of its predecessors. </p>
<p>“We do not believe in untrammelled free markets,” May <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8460e678-3bb0-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec">announced</a> when introducing the document in Halifax, Yorkshire. “We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.” </p>
<h2>Removing controls on totalitarianism</h2>
<p>My <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-conservative-human-rights-revolution-9780199811380?cc=gb&lang=en&">research</a> suggests that a less libertarian tenor to Conservative economic and social policy has implications for whether a future Conservative government would take steps to limit the application of the ECHR in Britain. It could also lay the groundwork for an eventual withdrawal from the treaty.</p>
<p>If this is far from obvious today, it is due to longstanding misconceptions regarding the role of Conservatives in the ECHR’s origin. In the late 1940s, Conservative MPs Winston Churchill and David Maxwell Fyfe were at the forefront of campaigning for the establishment of a European human rights court in advance of the ECHR’s adoption by the Council of Europe in 1950. The <a href="http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/56-9/1010095.aspx">common assumption</a> among supporters, detractors, and scholars of the ECHR alike is that the two men were concerned with the menace of fascism and communism alone – and that their conservative views on domestic matters were irrelevant.</p>
<p>Fascism and communism were certainly at the forefront of their concerns. But another spectre loomed: that of socialist efforts to enhance state power at the expense of individual freedoms and an independent judiciary. It was the fierce attachment of Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe to free-market individualism that distinguished their vision of human rights from that of the left. Following the Conservatives’ loss in the 1945 general election, they feared the awesome powers of a British state whose reach had grown dramatically during the war, and was now at service of a Labour majority. </p>
<p>For Maxwell Fyfe, Britain’s adherence to the ECHR was meant to limit the ability of parliamentary majorities to enact legislation harmful to British human rights, which he understood to mean personal liberties, including property rights, rather <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-civil-and-political-rights-have-been-easier-to-secure-than-social-and-economic-ones-77027">than social rights</a>. He conceived of a higher court that would have the power to declare acts of parliament in violation of the ECHR. </p>
<p>Undoubtedly, Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe would have found much to like in the 2017 Conservative manifesto. Even so, they would certainly have disapproved of its subordination of the individual to the collective, as well as May’s endorsement of a more populist vision of conservatism that rejects judicial constraints on parliamentary majority rule. </p>
<p>By announcing that “our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals … because that is what community and nation demands”, the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">manifesto</a> signals not just a rejection of Thatcherism. It also sounds the Conservative party’s retreat from a free-market libertarian critique of state power and tyranny of the majority. It was this that had fuelled Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe’s exceptional enthusiasm for Britain’s participation in the birth of a European human rights system with extraordinary controls on national executives and legislatures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marco Duranti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Conservative party manifesto’s repudiation of the ‘libertarian right’ bodes ill for the European Court of Human Rights.Marco Duranti, Lecturer in history, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786472017-06-02T13:15:04Z2017-06-02T13:15:04ZHow the parties differ on their plans to fix Britain’s social care crisis<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172019/original/file-20170602-20596-j2rbp5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ahead of the election on June 8, the UK’s main political parties have all proposed different solutions for the <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmcomloc/170106-Letter-to-Prime-Minister-on-social-care-and-NHS.pdf">social care crisis</a>. After the Conservatives’ proposals were labelled a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/25/dementia-tax-theresa-may-prime-minister-disabled-people">dementia tax</a>”, and the party made a policy <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-theresa-may-cant-escape-the-fallout-from-her-social-care-u-turn-78146">U-turn</a> on the issue of whether there will be a “cap” on care costs, the issue of adult social care has become a key issue in the election, particularly for older voters. </p>
<p>Unlike health care, social care is not covered by the NHS in England – and, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, health and social care is a devolved issue. Instead, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted">local authorities have a legal duty</a> to meet the needs of people who require care and their family carers. </p>
<p>Since 2010, local authorities have seen significant reductions in their budgets, which has had a major impact on their ability to provide care and support to those who require it. </p>
<p>An estimated <a href="http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/12m-older-people-dont-get-the-social-care-they-need/">1.2m older people</a> now have unmet care and support needs. This social care gap has been created by a combination of <a href="http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/03/how-big-social-care-funding-gap">underfunding</a>, an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-an-ageing-population">ageing population</a>, and a <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1471301213480514">confusing care system</a>. Part of the challenge is also related to changes in patterns of employment for men and women over the past half a century, which mean that women are less likely to be able to provide full-time care for family members. </p>
<h2>Promise of more money</h2>
<p>Additional funding for social care would help to partially address this problem, and most of the main political parties have focused on this in their manifestos. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/healthcare-for-all">Labour Party</a> offer an additional £8 billion for social care. The <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/health">Liberal Democrats</a> offer £6 billion more for health and social care combined, while the <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee/our-nhs-and-public-services.html">Green Party</a> promises a “major investment”. <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017">UKIP</a> suggests that it will reverse recent cuts to social care by up to £2 billion per year. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">Conservatives</a> offer no additional funding for social care in their manifesto. The party would, however, offer a year of unpaid leave to family carers, which would re-privatise responsibility for providing care onto family members (<a href="https://www.alz.co.uk/women-and-dementia">usually women</a>).</p>
<p>The current system is considered unfair for three key reasons: first, those who have modest assets (around £100,000) are hit hardest by the predominantly privatised nature of social care provision. They <a href="http://www.thirdsectorsolutions.net/assets/files/Fairer-Care-Funding-Report%20Dilnot%20July%202011.pdf">can have up to 80% of their assets depleted by long-term care needs</a>. Second, there is no way that people can protect themselves against care costs by pooling their risk. Third, those who pay for their own care often end up <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6c61fa30-f1dc-11e6-8758-6876151821a6">cross-subsidising</a> the care received by those who are funded by their local authority. </p>
<p>Increasing public funding for social care may help to address the cross-subsidy issue, but only if there is additional investment – not simply a modest increase which seeks to <a href="http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/03/how-big-social-care-funding-gap">fill the current gap</a>. If local authorities were able to cover the full cost of care for those eligible for support, this could mean care providers no longer have to charge those who fund their own care more than they do local authorities. But any extra money promised for social care might not do this, as none of the parties are explicitly proposing to address this systemic unfairness. </p>
<h2>Assets and caps</h2>
<p>Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have all committed in their manifestos to raising the maximum value of capital that people can keep before local authorities contribute to the their care costs. In England, all those with capital of more than <a href="http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/social-care-funding-changes/care-cap-and-means-test-changes/">£23,250</a> pay the full cost of their care, with local authorities funding the full costs of care for those with less than £14,500. This asset threshold currently only includes the value of a person’s home if they are moving permanently into residential care and they do not have a spouse or other dependent living in the home. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have not made clear what level they would set the threshold at. </p>
<p>The Conservatives have suggested they would implement a recommendation made by the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221130239/http://dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/">Dilnot Commission</a> to increase the asset threshold for help with care costs from £23,500 to £100,000. The Conservatives would include the value of a person’s home as part of their assets for the purposes of calculating eligibility for help with the costs of care in their own home. This would mean that far fewer people are eligible for help at home funded by their local authority. </p>
<p>Labour and the Liberal Democrats both promise to introduce a lifetime cap on total care costs in their manifestos. The Conservatives made a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-theresa-may-cant-escape-the-fallout-from-her-social-care-u-turn-78146">much-publicised U-turn</a> on this issue by saying there would be an “absolute limit” on how much people would pay for their care – though they have not said what the limit would be. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172008/original/file-20170602-18817-k0s1fd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats compare on social care.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Birmingham Law School</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Looking for long-term solutions</h2>
<p>The undervaluing of the care workforce is is an even more complex issue to solve and one not mentioned in most of the manifestos. At present, many of those working in frontline social care services are on insecure contracts and low pay. As the minimum wage increases, these care workers will see their pay increase, but the profit margins for many of the private business that own and run care services are squeezed. This can result in care failure, with the Care Quality Commission warning in 2016 that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/11/elderly-and-disabled-people-put-at-risk-by-care-homes-closures">the care sector as a whole is already at risk</a>. Labour has promised to ban zero-hours contracts and UKIP would prevent publicly-funded home care workers from being employed on zero-hours contracts. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/duties-to-care/DB226609B0AF6F0BC048673EF75532B9#">My research</a> has stressed that solving the care crisis will require long-term changes and innovative solutions. Three national parties have made commitments to finding a long-term solution: Labour propose introducing a National Care Service, the Liberal Democrats would integrate social care with the NHS and the Greens would re-nationalise care. Whether these parties can put their plans into action will depend on how voters respond to the choice before them about whether care should be privately or collectively funded.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosie Harding receives funding from the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. She is Chair of the Socio-Legal Studies Association. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of the research councils. </span></em></p>After the Conservatives’ U-turn on social care, how do the parties compare?Rosie Harding, Professor of Law and Society, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/779912017-05-26T12:05:58Z2017-05-26T12:05:58ZTory manifesto’s NHS and social care promises – do they add up?<p>Having presided over annual funding increases that are <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/10/nhs-spending-squeezed-never">among the lowest</a> in the history of the English NHS, the Conservative <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">manifesto</a> offers <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/election-2017-nhs-tory-manifesto-health-jeremy-hunt-theresa-may-conservative-general-8bn-a7743771.html">less generous funding</a> increases over the next five years than the other parties. Even this offer should not be taken at face value. </p>
<p>Just as in their 2015 manifesto, the Conservatives are promising to increase spending by £8 billion on the English NHS over the parliamentary term. But, once elected in 2015, the Conservatives committed to increase the health budget by only <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-think-the-nhs-is-going-to-receive-an-extra-8-4-billion-think-again-58333">£4.5 billion</a>, making up the difference by reducing spending on health education and training, public health grants and capital. </p>
<p>They’ll have less wriggle room to pull the same trick if re-elected. This is partly because they’ve reduced the education budget as far as they can by introducing <a href="https://theconversation.com/soon-nurses-will-pay-for-their-education-they-should-demand-higher-wages-63011">nursing bursaries</a>, which both the Liberal Democrats and Labour have promised to reinstate. And the Conservatives won’t be able to raid the capital budget, because they’re now promising the “most ambitious programme of investment in buildings and technology the NHS has ever seen”. Unlike the other parties, the Conservative manifesto provides no indication of where the extra funding is to come from.</p>
<h2>Sticking to their plans</h2>
<p>Unsurprisingly, given that they’re in power, the Conservatives aren’t promising radical change to the NHS, committing to the action plan known as the “<a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/next-steps-on-the-nhs-five-year-forward-view/">five-year forward view</a>” and to the so-called “<a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/stps/">sustainability and transformation plans</a>”, which have been drawn up by the NHS and local authorities to cover 44 geographical areas. These are set to evolve into Accountable Care Organisations, the latest in a never-ending sequence of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39116005">new organisations</a> to grace the English NHS, but which may quietly lead to the end of the <a href="http://navigator.health.org.uk/content/1989-white-paper-working-patients-was-published">internal market</a> introduced in 1990 by Margaret Thatcher. </p>
<p>The manifesto also restates existing policy commitments, including the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-all-the-fuss-about-a-seven-day-nhs-50020">controversial</a> promise to provide a “truly seven-day healthcare service”. They also plan to retain the <a href="http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/indicator/ae-waiting-times">target that 95% of people attending A&E</a> should be dealt with in less than four hours. This target has not been met since <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06964">July 2015</a>. </p>
<p>The manifesto also commits to the 18-week elective care target, which the NHS has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/nhs-surgery-target-operations-cancelled-simon-stevens">threatened to abandon</a>. The Conservatives aren’t going to allow the NHS to do this. Indeed, one of the subheadings of this section of the manifesto boldly states that they’ll be “holding NHS leaders to account”, which can be interpreted as a veiled threat to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/nhs-england-chief-executive-simon-stevens-funding-theresa-may-public-accounts-committee">Simon Stevens</a>, the chief of the NHS, to toe the political line.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=842&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=842&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=842&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1058&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1058&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170314/original/file-20170522-24998-179r67t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1058&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Manifesto may contain a veiled threat to Simon Stevens, head of NHS England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/462532264?src=wrpzYaNfJuJMbPe_x20Lrw-1-4&size=medium_jpg">Twocoms/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No concrete details are given about how the Conservatives hope to turn round increasingly poor waiting-time performance, but they seem to expect that better information will help improve the quality and safety of care. The NHS already leads the world in publishing outcomes data for individual doctors and, following <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/06/mjr-brkthgh-nhs-transp-cons/">initiatives introduced in 2013</a> when the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the manifesto promises to continue to make “clinical outcomes more transparent”. </p>
<h2>Replacing migrant staff</h2>
<p>Probably in a bid to lure UKIP sympathisers, the Conservatives are laying claim to being the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2306621.stm">“nasty” party</a> when it comes to dealing with the impact of immigration on the NHS. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-worth-making-health-tourists-pay-for-nhs-care-52607">annual health surcharge</a> on migrant workers that they introduced in April 2015 is to increase from £200 to £600 a year. </p>
<p>And, unlike the other parties, the Conservatives make no firm commitment to protecting the right to stay in the UK for the 140,000 health and care staff from other EU countries, merely saying they will be a “priority in our negotiations with the European Union”. The long-term ambition is to reduce reliance on overseas labour as more home-trained doctors, nurses, carers and other types of staff enter the workforce. To this end, the Conservatives have repeated their commitment to training 1,500 doctors annually, and also aim to recruit 10,000 more mental health professionals, presumably by the end of the parliamentary term.</p>
<p>They also intend to get more from the existing workforce. Following bitter negotiations, the Conservative government imposed a new contract on <a href="https://fullfact.org/health/junior-doctors-pay-short-introduction-dispute/">junior doctors</a>, phased in from October 2016. If re-elected, they plan to introduce a <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/02/gp-contract-17-18/">new contract for GPs</a>, which was agreed in February 2017, and to conclude ongoing <a href="https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-voice/influence/key-negotiations/terms-and-conditions/consultants-contract-negotiations-home">contract negotiations</a> with senior hospital doctors. </p>
<p>But they also say the NHS will become a better employer, offering more flexible working conditions, more training opportunities, a greater diversity of career paths and protection against bullying. Given the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/nhs-staff-numbers-15-16/">criticisms</a> that the government has received about NHS workforce planning, it is critical that <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Workforce-planning-NHS-Kings-Fund-Apr-15.pdf">better workforce plans</a> are developed if any of the manifesto promises are to be delivered.</p>
<h2>Dementia tax</h2>
<p>Within days of the manifesto launch the Conservatives had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40001221">back-tracked</a> on their plan on how to fund care of the elderly, which was quickly dubbed a “<a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/tory-dementia-tax-backfire-theresa-may/">dementia tax</a>” because it would hit people with long-term care needs, such as those with dementia, particularly hard. Instead Theresa May said the issue would be put to consultation.</p>
<p>The manifesto had dismissed the previous consultation, the Commission on Funding of Care and Support led by Sir Andrew Dilnot, which was set up by the coalition government in July 2010 and reported the following year. The manifesto claimed Dilnot’s proposals “mostly benefited a small number of wealthier people”. But this isn’t true: Dilnot recommended that a person’s <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221130239/http://www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/our-report/">lifetime contributions</a> to their social-care costs should be capped at £35,000. The Conservatives intended to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dementia-tax-u-turn-theresa-may-explained-jeremy-hunt-jeremy-hunt-care-cap-level-a7749191.html">drop this cap</a>, implying that many people would continue to face potentially unlimited costs. Theresa May has <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-dementia-tax-u-turn-pensioners-labour-corbyn-general-election-conservative-tory-poll-a7749001.html">since said</a> that a cap will be set, but not at what level.</p>
<p>Dilnot also recommended that the means-tested limit for home care should be raised from £23,250 to £100,000, meaning that people with assets below the threshold would have their costs covered by the state. The manifesto also promises to set the threshold at £100,000, but, unlike Dilnot, says that the value of the person’s home will be included in the calculation. If this becomes policy many people with long-term health problems, such as dementia, won’t be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39967486">able to pass on their houses</a> to their family when they die. This, coupled with the lack of an overall cap, caused an outcry, and May’s rapid <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/22/theresa-may-expected-announce-dementia-tax-u-turn/">U-turn</a>.</p>
<p>The manifesto also promises that winter fuel payments to the elderly are to be means tested. One way or another, many pensioners will be made worse off if these promises become policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street has received project funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, and the European Union. The views expressed are his own.</span></em></p>The Conservatives will have less wiggle-room this time around.Andrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/780582017-05-19T15:29:49Z2017-05-19T15:29:49ZThe hidden messages of a party manifesto: Election Weekly podcast<p>The 2017 election campaign stepped up a gear this week as Labour, <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-manifesto-the-pitch-of-a-brave-prime-minister-77993">the Conservatives</a> and the Liberal Democrats all published their election manifestos.</p>
<p>We saw the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lib-dem-manifesto-who-is-it-for-exactly-77131">Lib Dems</a> promising to legalise cannabis and hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal. </p>
<p>Labour made some generous offerings for everyone except the very richest among us. As we discussed in <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresas-bins-and-jeremys-leaks-election-weekly-podcast-77592">last week’s episode</a>, we already knew a lot about Jeremy Corbyn’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/be-it-bold-or-foolish-the-labour-manifesto-at-least-offers-voters-a-real-choice-77829">manifesto</a> because someone leaked it to the press in advance. But the final document confirmed such plans as raising income tax for the top 5% of earners to fund greater spending on the NHS, reversing a great many of the Conservative’s welfare reforms, and re-nationalising the railways. </p>
<p>The Conservatives were the last of the three to publish – and took rather a different approach. Their manifesto was more focused on the philosophy of the party under the leadership of Theresa May than about making promises to woo voters. We were told the country faces “giant” challenges and that the collective good must come before the individual to tackle those problems. That means richer pensioners will lose their fuel allowance and may have to contribute more to the costs of their care. </p>
<p>These documents are very important. They set out what each party is proposing to achieve if you vote it into government. This week, we’re delving into their pages to understand what’s on offer. </p>
<p>Andrew Scott Crines from the University of Liverpool and Ben Williams from the University of Salford talk to The Converesation’s politics editor Laura Hood about what we’ve learned about current <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-theresa-mays-conservatives-theyre-not-the-nasty-party-honest-78010">Conservative ideology</a>, whether Labour’s pledges are enough to save it from the jaws of defeat and what the point is of producing a manifesto if you, like the Liberal Democrats, openly admit you aren’t going to win. </p>
<p>We’re also looking at what the immediate implications are for the Conservative pledge to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which means that general elections are only held every five years. With that law out of the way, could we be heading for yet another vote before too long? </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Music in Election Weekly is Chasin’ It, by Jason Shaw. A big thank you to City University London’s Department of Journalism for letting us use their studios.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams is a member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), the Higher Education Academy and the Labour Party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You need to know what each party is promising but who has the time to read through all their programmes for government? We did so you don't have to.Andrew S. Roe-Crines, British Politics Lecturer, University of LiverpoolBen Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775762017-05-11T15:19:38Z2017-05-11T15:19:38ZA beginner’s guide to election manifestos – and why they really matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168960/original/file-20170511-32624-aotofi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You probably won't read them, but these documents can make or break a party. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The launch of a party’s manifesto is among the most decisive moments in a British general election campaign. Manifestos are not merely devices to harvest votes at election time. They establish the agenda for government that the party will pursue in office.</p>
<p>Manifestos have a quasi-constitutional authority in the British political system. If a party has secured a parliamentary majority in the House of Commons on the basis of its manifesto, the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/">Salisbury Convention</a> states that the government’s programme cannot be vetoed by a recalcitrant House of Lords.</p>
<p>Political parties approach manifesto writing very differently. The Labour party has a process that ensures all of the key elements on the National Executive Committee (NEC) have influence. So the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), the trade unions, constituency Labour parties and affiliated societies all take part in drawing the document up. <a href="http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf">Clause five</a> of Labour’s constitution requires the manifesto to be formally agreed by the party’s stakeholders at a special meeting of the NEC.</p>
<p>This rule was designed in the 1970s and 1980s to address the difficulties encountered by Harold Wilson’s governments in their relations with the party. At the time there was a suspicion on the left that the leadership would betray the party’s grassroots by refusing to implement the radical measures contained in the Labour manifesto. </p>
<p>The Conservatives have traditionally been more pragmatic and flexible, giving control of their manifesto almost entirely to the leader and the central party organisation.</p>
<h2>What’s the point of a manifesto?</h2>
<p>Manifestos have had distinct purposes at various historical moments in British political history. Labour’s <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm">1945</a> and <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab79.htm">1979</a> manifestos were relatively short and pithy documents. They set out at a broad vision of society that was a decisive break from what had gone before. In contrast, Tony Blair’s manifesto in <a href="http://labourmanifesto.com/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml">2001</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_04_05_labour_manifesto.pdf">2005</a> spelled out his approach to public service reform across health, education and criminal justice, providing a mass of technocratic detail. Similarly, in 2010 David Cameron set out his comprehensive plan for the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617433.stm">Big Society</a>.</p>
<p>Manifestos also matter because they can create damaging hostages to fortune. Labour’s manifesto in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-32287585/bbc-rewind-1983-labour-manifesto">1983</a> was described as “the longest suicide note in history” because it featured electorally unpopular commitments to public ownership, state planning and unilateral nuclear disarmament.</p>
<p>The Conservatives’ 1987 manifesto proposed reforming the domestic rates system and a “community charge”, subsequently known as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980361/Margaret-Thatcher-Refusal-to-back-down-on-poll-tax-that-cost-the-leader-dear.html">Poll Tax</a>. The unpopularity of the Poll Tax led to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990.</p>
<p>In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats famously made a <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf">commitment</a> to scrap university tuition fees – a pledge that was dropped once the party entered a coalition government with the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats were accused of egregious political betrayal and suffered dreadful losses in the next election as a result. </p>
<h2>Reading between the lines</h2>
<p>In the 2017 election, the Conservative manifesto will be more heavily scrutinised than the Labour or Liberal Democrat manifestos, since the Conservatives are expected to win a parliamentary majority on the basis of the published polls. But, at the same time, the confidence with which the governing party has entered this race means it may not feel the need to make costly pre-election commitments in its manifesto. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439">leak</a> of Labour’s draft manifesto indicates the party is still plagued by internal divisions as to its long-term direction. </p>
<p>What is less clear about party manifestos is how far they actually assist the democratic process. Very few people will read the manifesto of the party they are voting for. Most people depend on soundbite summaries that appear in the mass media.</p>
<p>Manifestos are unlikely to disappear from party’s campaigns, but there should be more independent scrutiny of manifestos: arm’s-length bodies that are formally independent of government such as the Office for Budgetary Responsibility or the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be tasked with producing detailed costings and assessments of each party’s manifesto to assist public debate. That might help voters digest the information they need before voting and help them make informed choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77576/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is affiliated with Policy Network and is a member of the Labour party. </span></em></p>Here’s why you should bother paying attention to the documents published by your party this election.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424842015-05-28T10:36:48Z2015-05-28T10:36:48ZConservative education plans are poetic - but are they practical?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83224/original/image-20150528-32187-1y8sg3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">She's got skills. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cybrarian77/6284181389/sizes/l">cybrarian77/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Each year, the Queen’s speech marks the point where the poetry of aspiration gets translated into the hard slog of legislation and implementation. The Conservative <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-hold-the-course-with-schools-plan-40192">manifesto for education</a> was certainly bold and aspirational: firmly targeted at parents (the chapter on education is headed “giving your child the best start in life”), the document promised a “good primary school place for every child”, with “zero tolerance of failure”. It pledged that struggling and failing schools would be taken over, good schools – of whatever type – would be allowed to expand, and 500 new free schools would be established. </p>
<p>Now, the government plans to introduce an Education Bill which will tackle schools that are “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-coasting-school-41993">failing and coasting</a>” by forcing institutions deemed by Ofsted to be “requiring improvement” to accept new headteachers, unless they can demonstrate a plan for rapid improvement. </p>
<p>The new school leadership would be backed by expert sponsors, or high-performing neighbouring schools. The best headteachers would also take control of failing primary schools, through the expansion of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/national-leaders-of-education-a-guide-for-potential-applicants#overview">National Leaders of Education</a> programme. All secondary schools that fall into this category would be converted into academies.</p>
<h2>Right tools for the job?</h2>
<p>The challenge here is that the manifesto promises two fundamentally different sets of tools to achieve its goals. On one hand, it is held that the market will deliver: good schools will expand, or good headteachers and leadership teams will take over the leadership of weaker schools. New schools – new free schools – will develop where they are needed. On the other hand, it is regulation and intervention that will deliver: Ofsted inspection will become even more important, and someone – presumably regional schools commissioners – will intervene to academise schools and to replace leadership teams. </p>
<p>These tensions between the market and intervention make for uneasy policy, and have sharp practical implications. There’s no necessary connection between the areas where additional school places are needed and where good schools are located. And there’s <a href="http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/a-rising-tide-the-competitive-benefits-of-free-schools">evidence to suggest</a> that free schools have the biggest impact on standards, not in areas where they were “needed” for the supply of school places, but in areas where they introduced surplus provision, generating competition and choice. </p>
<p>Equally, not all good schools want to expand – and there are few market incentives for them to do so. If a good school puts its own quality in jeopardy by expanding, it now runs the risk of being categorised as “requiring improvement”, which would trigger intervention and potential takeover.</p>
<h2>Prosaic, not poetic</h2>
<p>The challenges of the education marketplace are not confined to school supply. It is likely that the new legislation will require schools in an intervention category to accept new headteachers, unless they can demonstrate a plan for rapid improvement. In practice, of course, all schools in a category are required to produce a plan for rapid improvement. But setting this aside, the problem is likely to be that there are simply not enough good school leaders (who are prepared to risk their career), or, indeed, enough good academy chains to meet these requirements. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83229/original/image-20150528-32170-1ahq2iu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Requiring improvement’?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/380814854/sizes/l">dullhunk/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are outstanding school leaders and there are outstanding academy chains – just as there are outstanding local authorities. In the early years of academisation – under both Labour and coalition governments – the academy chains that ran into trouble were those that expanded too fast, taking on too many schools. Managing that marketplace will be a real challenge for the government, and will need a legislative underpinning.</p>
<p>There’s one more issue. Running through the proposed legislation is a concern with schools – good ones, struggling ones, failing ones, new ones. But <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/pisa%20in%20focus%20n27%20(eng)--FINAL_version2.pdf">research consistently finds</a> that variation within schools is much greater than between schools. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unseen-children-access-and-achievement-20-years-on">Ofsted report</a> on “unseen children” – for which I was on the advisory panel – understood this well, and examined the performance of poor children in otherwise good schools. </p>
<p>The key drivers here are neither the structure of the school system, nor academisation, but a consistent focus on the quality of teaching. As the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/Manifesto">Conservative Party manifesto</a> puts it; “teaching is a highly skilled profession”. The key focus needs to be on how we recruit, develop and deploy teachers: the English labour market for teachers is one of the most devolved in the world, meaning there are few levers we can pull to get the best teachers into the schools where they are needed most.</p>
<p>Over the past five years, the landscape of education governance has been transformed. Academy chains and regional schools commissioners have forged strong links back to the Department for Education. The 1944 settlement – which deliberately restricted the power of central government, and vested control over education in a complex mix of local education authorities, foundations and churches – has been unwound.</p>
<p>The relationships between central government and individual schools, between the market and intervention, will govern the implementation of the Conservative manifesto. Yet all education politics is ultimately local – about this school in this place: very prosaic, and not at all poetic.</p>
<p><em>This article was co-published with <a href="https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/conservative-education-plans-are-poetic-but-are-they-practical/">UCL IoE London</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42484/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Husbands does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new government wants to take on failing and coasting schools, but they may not have the right tools for the job.Chris Husbands, Director of the Institute of Education and Professor of Education, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424272015-05-27T13:07:15Z2015-05-27T13:07:15ZQueen’s speech 2015: the experts respond<p><em>Parliament has officially opened and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2015">Queen’s speech</a> has been delivered. The speech – written by prime minister David Cameron – outlined the new government’s ambitious policy agenda for the coming year. From the so-called “snoopers’ charter”, to city deals for a “northern powerhouse”, our experts are on hand to explain what it all means.</em></p>
<h2>Europe</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow at The Centre for European Policy Studies</strong></p>
<p>The speech contained precious few words on the government’s plans for the UK’s place in Europe, but those words were not totally uninformative. The proposal to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was not news and the wording leaves room for the option to do it earlier – which is what the government would like if possible.</p>
<p>The most interesting point was about the three Rs – repatriation, renegotiation, and reform. Repatriation was missing entirely from the speech – and quite rightly so, since the government’s own thorough <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-nation-the-great-european-question-39095">Balance of Competence Review</a> showed no case for handing certain powers from the EU to national governments.</p>
<p>Reform was, on the other hand, highlighted as being something that could benefit all member states. This was more than just diplomacy, but one founded in real opportunities that the UK can promote, ranging from cutting red tape to advancing new agendas for the digital era.</p>
<p>Renegotiation also got a mention. This mostly concerns the migration and so-called benefit tourism. But otherwise there is not much to renegotiate, since the extent of existing British opt-outs is so big (the euro, justice and home affairs), while foreign policy and taxation are covered by <a href="http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/majority_en.htm">unanimity decision making</a>, so nothing can be decided without the UK’s agreement anyway. </p>
<p>All told, even though Cameron has not yet shown his full hand in public when it comes to his plans for Europe, his thinking may be heading in a sensible direction. </p>
<h2>Income tax</h2>
<p><strong>Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at University of Essex</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech included promises of legislation to ensure that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not pay income tax. It also mentioned new laws to guarantee that there are no rises in income tax rates, value added tax (VAT) or national insurance for the next five years. A related <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-sets-out-his-vision-for-the-country-in-a-one-nation-queens-speech">government press release</a> says that annual income tax personal allowance will increase from the current rate of £10,600 to £12,500 by 2020. </p>
<p>But all is not what it seems. The minimum wage rate from October 2015 is £6.70 per hour for adults. So anyone working a 37 hours a week would earn about £13,000 a year, and would still be liable to income tax.</p>
<p>The higher personal allowances may help the middle-classes, but will do nothing for <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7735">44% of adults</a> whose income is already too low to pay any income tax. The poor pay VAT at 20%, the same rate as the very rich. The government statistics show that the <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-22/poor-households-pay-47-of-income-in-tax/">poorest 10%</a> of households now pay nearly 47% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, while the richest 10% pay 35% of their income in taxes. This imbalance is not addressed.</p>
<h2>Devolution</h2>
<p><strong>Peter Lynch, Politics at the University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>So, this is what a Conservative Queen’s Speech looks like — 26 legislative proposals not watered down by the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Some bills are in keeping with the coalition theme though, such as the various proposals for more devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These were a consequence of cross-party discussions (and the independence referendum in Scotland’s case).</p>
<p>The Scotland bill already appeared in draft form in January as part of the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf">white paper on Scotland</a>, which contained the proposals from the cross-party <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot/smith-commission-report/">Smith Commission</a>.</p>
<p>The government plans to pass legislation on these proposals in time for the 2016 Scottish elections — even though they currently seem incoherent. The plans will be subject to criticism and amendment in parliament along the way.</p>
<p>The bill contains plans to increase Scottish control of income tax and public spending, allocate a share of VAT and transfer some welfare powers. The tax powers are important as a measure of fiscal autonomy but also as a political tactic to support the Union through devolution and allow the Scottish Conservatives to present themselves as a <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/david-camerons-government-to-fast-track-new-powers-so-tories-can-offer.127220575">low-tax party at the 2016 election</a>. </p>
<h2>Surveillance</h2>
<p><strong>Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law at Durham University</strong> </p>
<p>New powers to collect data were referred to briefly in the Queen’s speech and will arise under the Investigatory Powers Bill. It will cover powers that would have arisen under the Communications and Data Bill, often referred to as the “snoopers’ charter”. Without the Liberal Democrats in government to oppose it, these powers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/theresa-may-revive-snoopers-charter-lib-dem-brakes-off-privacy-election">can now re-emerge</a>. But the new bill goes much further and will increase the security services’ warranted powers for the mass interception of the <em>content</em> of communications.</p>
<p>This legislation will require data communications companies to store the details of messages sent on social media and gaming, voice calls made over the internet, emails and phone calls – known collectively as metadata – for 12 months. </p>
<p>It will probably require that the information is stored in a common format data in vast databases; the security services and police would be able to access this meta-data without the permission of a judge, in the interests of investigating criminal or terrorist-related activity. </p>
<p>The idea behind the new bill is that details and content of communications should not be kept secret, just because they exist in digital form. It aims to address the fact that terrorist and other organised criminal groups are increasingly exploiting available communications technology in a range of sophisticated ways; for instance, by using encryption, and communicating via platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat. </p>
<p>The objections likely to be made to the bill are grounded in fears about the state’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-right-to-privacy-in-the-uk-15265">invasion of privacy</a>, and the security of the material; those concerns are likely to be echoed by the big communications companies such as Google. </p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Street, Professor at Centre for Health Economics at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The Queen’s speech reiterates the Conservatives’ promise to implement Simon Steven’s <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf">five-year forward view</a>, which enjoys cross-party support. This includes plans to improve access to mental health service, reconfigure services and better integrate health and social care.</p>
<p>Cameron is committed to a 24/7 NHS, though this <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/may/21/obesity-diabetes-governments-top-priorities-says-jeremy-hunt?CMP=share_btn_tw">doesn’t appear to be among the priorities</a> of his secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt. Operating 24/7 hospital services will be expensive, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.3207/full">estimated to increase annual costs</a> by up to £1.4 billion – arguably too much to justify the hoped-for reduction in higher death rates over the weekend. </p>
<p>It will be challenging to introduce seven-day GP services when there are <a href="http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/may/rcgp-response-to-prime-minister-speech-on-seven-day-nhs.aspx">insufficient GPs to meet demand</a> during normal hours, hence <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-on-health-the-tories-make-vague-promises-and-claims-that-dont-stand-up-40189">the manifesto promise</a> to recruit an additional 5,000 GPs.</p>
<p>There was a reminder that the Conservatives have promised to increase the NHS budget, by £8 billion over the next five years. But an additional £30 billion <a href="http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/5854661/Adult+social+care+funding+2014+state+of+the+nation+report/e32866fa-d512-4e77-9961-8861d2d93238">is required to meet rising NHS demand</a>, with a projected £4 billion funding gap for adult social care. </p>
<p>The government hopes the shortfall in the NHS budget will be filled by annual productivity growth of 2% to 3%, though this would be <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/5084013.article#.VWWrOVXBzRZ">unprecedented</a>. Funding will prove the greatest challenge for the NHS over the parliamentary term.</p>
<h2>Human rights</h2>
<p><strong>Arman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law at the University of Surrey</strong></p>
<p>The government has watered down its plan to put forward a bill on replacing the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights, bowing to reported disquiet among senior Conservative backbenchers. As the opening of parliament approached, it appeared increasingly unlikely that the bill would survive passage through parliament without the full support of the party.</p>
<p>However, the Queen did announce that the government would “bring forward proposals” on this issue and it is now widely anticipated that a (presumably public) consultation will be held before measures are brought before parliament.</p>
<p>This bill was a key Conservative manifesto pledge in the run-up to the general election. The ostensible aim is to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights” and to hand greater power to the UK Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Prominent Conservative backbenchers opposed to this ill-advised plan include Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, and former justice secretary Kenneth Clarke.</p>
<p>The notion that British judges are constrained by Strasbourg in their influence on human rights law is false. Whatever the avowed purpose of the reforms, their practical effect would be to threaten to subordinate judges, British and European alike, to the whims of ministers and parliamentarians on individual cases. This threatens the principle of qualified judges, not parliamentarians, deciding on individual cases.</p>
<p>Consulting the public is a tactical postponement of legislation. The government and the Conservative Party remain committed in principle to the proposals. The British public must use this consultation as an opportunity to register robust opposition to any change in the status quo. And Conservative Party members must put pressure on the leadership to abandon this policy and thus uphold the great Conservative tradition of robust commitment to the rule of law.</p>
<h2>Welfare</h2>
<p><strong>Roy Sainsbury, Professor of Social Policy at University of York</strong></p>
<p>The 2010 Queen’s speech heralded the biggest shake-up of the benefits system since <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society-professionals/2014/jul/07/-sp-beveridge-report-revisited-where-now-for-the-welfare-state">Beveridge</a>, including the introduction of Universal Credit, the benefit cap, and the bedroom tax. In contrast, this Queen’s speech is small beer; the big stuff has been done. The speech promises only that the government will “continue to reform welfare” by introducing legislation “encouraging employment by capping benefits and requiring young people to earn or learn.” </p>
<p>These two measures come as no surprise; we knew what to expect from the Conservative manifesto. First, the current benefit cap of £26,000 a year will be reduced to £23,000. Some families will therefore lose around £60 a week. As yet, we do not know how many, or how they will respond. To date nearly 60,000 households in total (overwhelmingly families with children) have had their benefits capped, saving around £100 million a year. Evidence shows that some claimants moved into work either before or after the imposition of the cap. The government has rather <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/benefit-cap-cameron-stampede-jobcentre-ifs">gilded these findings</a> as a “stampede to the jobcentre” but the majority affected by the cap have somehow adjusted to (sometimes considerable) reductions in household income. </p>
<p>The second policy innovation applies to young people under 25, who will no longer be eligible for Jobseekers Allowance or Housing Benefit – more on this below. In essence, the policy tells young people that they are expected “earn or learn”. Will it work? A pilot in 2013 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378308/rr888-day-one-support-for-young-people-trailblzer.pdf">showed no impact</a> on sustained job entries. But that was a pilot. Presumably lessons have been learned and we can only wait to see if “earn or learn” does better.</p>
<p>Which leaves us with the glaring omission from the Queen’s speech: the £12 billion cut in the welfare budget. As we know, repeated attempts before the election to draw the Conservatives on where these cuts will fall were met with silence. We learned nothing, and the Queen’s speech has left us still in ignorance – despite <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762">the best efforts of the IFS</a>. But when the silence is eventually broken, all talk of benefit caps and “earn or learn” will almost certainly be swept aside, as the next big losers from welfare reforms are identified. </p>
<h2>Youth employment</h2>
<p><strong>Benjamin Bowman, PhD candidate in Politics at University of Bath</strong></p>
<p>The speech included a plan to replace the Jobseeker’s Allowance with a Youth Allowance for 18 to 21-year-olds, who will now work 30 hours compulsory labour for a £57.35 per week allowance. That equates to about £1.91 per hour.</p>
<p>The scheme plans to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29398907">enforce full employment</a> for the young. It will also <a href="http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/education-schools-teaching-news/councils-lose-track-100000-neets/">centralise control</a> over the young workforce, as many MPs feel local government has dropped the ball. Young unemployment is extremely high, with 14.4% of those aged 16-24 out of work: the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure">worst gap</a> for 20 years. </p>
<p>Abolishing unemployment with compulsory labour is a radical move. Young citizens were <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-people-were-hit-worst-by-the-great-recession-10101672.html">worst hit</a> by the recession, and remain extremely vulnerable to low wages and poor conditions. They are <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/analysis-of-employee-contracts-that-do-not-guarantee-a-minimum-number-of-hours.html">three times</a> more likely to work on a zero-hours contract. Critics <a href="https://twitter.com/SkySUBC/status/567585302982557696">warn</a> that the allowance is exploiting vulnerable people already struggling to find work. If so, the Youth Allowance will merely fasten another bolt on the door separating young people from the job market.</p>
<p>There is no point building a bridge to employment unless there are jobs on the other side. If it is to succeed, the Youth Allowance must make good on David Cameron’s pledge to build <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11416694/David-Cameron-Jobless-teenagers-must-carry-out-community-work-to-get-benefits.html">“a country that rewards work”</a>. For young people, just like everyone else, the reward for work must be a decent, liveable wage and affordable housing. <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Tune_in_-_web.pdf?1419813387">Research</a> shows young people are supportive of pathways-to-work schemes. Now is the time for government to make sure the pathway leads somewhere.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83161/original/image-20150527-4831-162zgio.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Suit up or knuckle down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexfrance/3221301604/sizes/l">Alex France/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Katharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow at Coventry University</strong></p>
<p>Having already <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-immigration">set out his plans</a> last week, today David Cameron merely required the Queen to assert that his government will “control immigration”. His government proposes to make “illegal working” a criminal offence in a forthcoming Immigration Bill: the tenth piece of such legislation in the past 20 years. In the bill, the wages earned by irregular migrants – that is, migrants without a valid visa – will be defined as the “proceeds of crime”, meaning they can be confiscated by the authorities. </p>
<p>This is to be accompanied by a raft of measures, including informing private sector landlords when their tenants’ visas expire, tracing irregular migrants through the banking system, and removing the right to appeal against deportation from inside the UK. The bill will also introduce a new enforcement agency and a visa levy on businesses seeking to recruit overseas workers. It will prohibit recruitment agencies from advertising jobs overseas, without first advertising in the UK. </p>
<p>Last week, Cameron that these measures will reduce immigration to the UK, prevent UK wages being driven down and stop exploitation of migrants. None of these three arguments holds up.</p>
<p>Having all repeatedly <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">failed to meet their own migration targets</a>, UK governments should accept that immigration controls turn the numbers of migrants arriving in the UK on and off like a tap. A deregulated labour market that fails to prevent exploitation and employers seeking cheap flexible labour <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/Research_projects/Labour_markets/Changing_status/Fair%20enough%20findings%20-%201%20May%202006.pdf">are the pull factors</a> for labour migrants coming to this country. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf">Decades of research</a> have told us that migrants do not have a major negative impact on the UK labour market. And in any case it is employers that set wages, not migrants.</p>
<p>So what of his third argument –- that his proposals will stop the exploitation of migrants? Rather than protecting migrants, the new measures will do the exact opposite. We <a href="http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/files/publications/papers_please.pdf">already know</a> that the sanctions on employers for hiring irregular workers harm all migrants, while doing nothing to protect the exploited. The new measures will prevent migrants from reporting abusive employers or landlords. Worse, they will criminalise migrants for their own exploitation. </p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Michael Jopling, Professor in Education at Northumbria University</strong></p>
<p>Although education policy <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11610551/Nicky-Morgan-We-will-step-up-our-school-reforms-so-every-child-can-thrive.html">has had a high profile</a> since the election, today’s Queen’s speech contained only a passing reference to schools. Free schools did not feature, but the speech contained a vague commitment to giving every child the best start in life, associated with the creation of “new powers to take over failing and coasting schools and create more academies”. </p>
<p>There are two points to note here. First, linking coasting with failure and “takeover” will set alarm bells ringing. This remains a concern despite education secretary Nicky Morgan’s attempts in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32763097">recent interviews</a> to distinguish between “failing” and “coasting” schools, and to reassure the profession that coasting schools – <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-coasting-school-41993">however they’re defined</a> – will be allowed <a href="http://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-week-editor-interviews-edcuation-secretary-audio-recording/">to develop their own improvement plans</a>. </p>
<p>Second, it signals Morgan’s desire not only to extend but also to speed up the process of becoming an academy. As the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/258/258.pdf">Education Committee emphasised in January 2015</a>, and despite the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-forges-on-with-academies-revolution-despite-mounting-concerns-on-oversight-37080">government’s claims to the contrary</a>, we have no evidence yet that converting schools into academies leads to improvement. </p>
<p>So the forthcoming Education Bill risks both further <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-victory-means-englands-school-system-will-look-like-few-others-in-the-world-41553">isolating the English school system internationally</a> and alienating headteachers and teachers at a time <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11539560/Primary-school-places-more-must-be-done-to-ease-alarming-pressure-on-the-system.html">when rising numbers of primary age children</a> mean we need all the teachers we can get.</p>
<h2>Small businesses</h2>
<p><strong>Stephen Roper, Director of the Enterprise Research Centre at the University of Warwick</strong></p>
<p>Small business owners listening to this speech probably had rather mixed feelings about the next couple of years. </p>
<p>On the positive side the proposed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32900673">cuts in red tape</a> will be welcome. The plan to establish a conciliation service to settle late payment and other disputes between small and large businesses will also be applauded.</p>
<p>In other countries such as Australia similar services have developed to become champions for small business interests and sometimes challenge the government on policies that are not small-business friendly. It is not yet clear whether these roles will also be part of the UK service.</p>
<p>The aim to offer 3 million new apprenticeships during this parliament will also be welcomed by many firms struggling to attract skilled employees. As recent debates have suggested, however, the key issue here will be maintaining quality as numbers are expanded. </p>
<p>The biggest negative is the uncertainty caused by the forthcoming European referendum. This may discourage some firms from investing in expanding European sales. Businesses that supply the public sector, outside health and education, may also feel the squeeze of spending cuts and the restructuring of budgets. </p>
<h2>Housing</h2>
<p><strong>Anya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>In the Queen’s speech today, the Conservative government’s priorities for social housing were announced. The main proposal put forward was to extend the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme to housing association tenants.</p>
<p>Around 2.5 million council tenants across the UK have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/social-housing-sales-including-right-to-buy-and-transfers">already bought their homes</a> since RTB was introduced by Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1980. </p>
<p>The government claims that these new proposals will increase house building and reduced council house waiting lists, by replacing each social unit sold. However, the National Housing Federation, Shelter and the Institute of Fiscal Studies have expressed doubts about this pledge being met. Shelter <a href="http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/03/right-to-buy-one-to-one-replacement-falling-short-in-london/">estimates that</a> only one house per ten houses sold has been built since 2012 when the government extended RTB of council homes.</p>
<p>This raises significant questions about how the proposals will impact on the supply of affordable rented housing in the UK, significant given there are currently 1.8 million households on social housing waiting lists, <a href="http://data.gov.uk/dataset/england-hssa-housing-strategy-statistical-appendix">an increase of 81%</a> since 1997.</p>
<p>There are further important questions which remain unanswered. First, the cost implications of the scheme, <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/right-to-buy-extension-estimated-to-cost-12-billion/">estimated at £11.2 billion</a>, and <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7730">considered potentially detrimental</a> to the UK’s economic recovery.</p>
<p>Although the scheme is to be funded by local authority stock sales and government subsidy, it is unclear how the scheme will work in practice or how it will be funded.</p>
<h2>Childcare</h2>
<p><strong>Caitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics at Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.fct.bigmallet.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/Childcare_cost_survey_2015_Final.pdf#overlay-context=annual-childcare-costs-surveys">rising costs</a> of childcare putting increasing strain on family budgets, it was good to see the government’s childcare proposals feature in the Queen’s speech.</p>
<p>The Conservatives have previously proposed that working parents of three- and four-year-olds be offered free childcare for 30 hours per week – extended from the 15 per week currently on offer for all families.</p>
<p>This is a worthy goal. An inability to afford childcare services can pose a significant <a href="http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Careers-and-Carers-FINAL.pdf">barrier</a> to parents – especially mothers – seeking employment.</p>
<p>But questions remain about childcare access for families where both parents aren’t currently in employment. For instance, should these children be excluded from increased childcare hours (especially given that access to high quality early education and care plays a key role in <a href="http://www.crec.co.uk/docs/Access.pdf">reducing inequality</a>)? It is also unclear what will happen in the event that a parent loses his or her job – will the child immediately lose access to those extra funded hours?</p>
<p>And many parents would feel unable to accept an offer of employment unless childcare had already been arranged – childcare access is a prerequisite for undertaking employment, not a reward for doing so.</p>
<p>While targeting eligibility may save some money in the short run, it comes at a cost – increased administrative complexity and further entrenchment of educational inequality among children.</p>
<h2>City deals</h2>
<p><strong>Alex Nurse, Research Associate at University of Liverpool</strong></p>
<p>If there were two major thematic elements to this Queen’s Speech, they would be the economy and devolution. Sat in the middle of the government’s legislative agenda, and neatly tying these themes together, came the proposals for the northern powerhouse, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32720462">which will see a raft of powers including those for regeneration, transport and health</a> devolved away from Westminster to the cities – with <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-devo-manc-a-good-model-for-english-devolution-almost-41643">Manchester standing first in line</a>.</p>
<p>This was pitched as a means to deliver a “balanced economic recovery”, fitting neatly within the Government’s “one nation” agenda. It can be seen broadly as an attempt to help the north to catch up to London, and to <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/were-moving-scotland-manchester-votes-9254231">assuage those with itchy feet</a> as Scotland receives even more powers. </p>
<p>But the explicit mention of metro-mayors gives a clear signal to cities that have yet to sign up: this is not a free ride. They will be expected to deliver, <a href="https://theconversation.com/devolution-plan-could-be-a-poisoned-chalice-for-cities-41848">and be held democratically accountable for</a> their actions under these plans.</p>
<p>The inclusion of high speed rail is no coincidence, reminding us that HS2 has yet to clear the statute books, but also that proposals for HS3 would form part of the glue holding this revamped northern powerhouse together.</p>
<h2>Counter-extremism</h2>
<p><strong>Imran Awan, Senior Lecturer at Birmingham City University</strong></p>
<p>The government <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27777892">defines extremism</a> as “vocal or active opposition to British values”. With that in mind, it is strange that the government’s idea of tackling extremism involves a curtailment of people’s freedom of expression – surely one of Britain’s most proudly-held values. Tackling extremism is important, but this new legislation to monitor – and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-government-bids-to-ban-free-speech-in-counter-terrorism-plan-41781">in effect criminalise</a> – free speech, is problematic.</p>
<p>The new government proposes to bring in Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders, and to give Ofcom new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that include “extremist content”. According to the government, Banning Orders would allow the state to ban groups who seek to undermine democracy through hate speech, and are considered to be espousing “extreme” views. Meanwhile, Extremism Disruption Orders will be used if there is a “reasonable belief” that a group may be inciting religious or racial hatred, which means the public are at risk of potential violence and people may be at risk of being radicalised.</p>
<p>It is likely that these measures will only exacerbate feelings of insecurity and fear. We know from past experience that efforts to legislate against extremist ideologies can actually win terrorist groups more support. For example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 ended up <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596591211244157">working as a recruitment tool</a> for IRA terrorists.</p>
<p>The ancient writ of habeas corpus, due process, and the rule of law are being lost in this wave of anti-terror legislation. Accordingly, the government’s new Extremism Bill must ensure that it does not label all Muslims as potential targets, because this will only stigmatise and marginalise them. Indeed, senior figures in the Conservative cabinet <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/mays-plan-to-censor-tv-programmes-condemned-by-tory-cabinet-colleague">have already condemned</a> the measures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42427/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme but the views expressed are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arman Sarvarian is a non-practising member of the Bar of England and Wales and a member of the Conservative Party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Bowman receives funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Jones does not work for/consult to/own shares in any organisation which would benefit from this article. She has received funding from ILO, IOM and OSF. She is affiliated with Scottish Refugee Council and Scottish Detainee Visitors.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson is a former EU ambassador to Moscow, and receives funding from various private foundations and in some cases contracts from governments. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute, which receives funding a variety of sources, including membership fees, project research, foundation grants, conferences fees and publication sales.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prem Sikka is director of the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs (AABA), a not-for-profit organsation which campaigns for greater corporate accountability.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roy Sainsbury is Director of the Social Policy Research Unit (SPRU). The SPRU carries out research for a wide range of funders, including the Department for Work and Pensions. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Roper is Director of the Enterprise Research Centre which is funded by the ESRC, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, Innovate UK and the major banks.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Nurse, Anya Ahmed, Caitlin McLean, Helen Fenwick, Imran Awan, Michael Jopling, and Peter Lynch do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Academic experts break down the bills in the Queen’s speech and get to grips with the new Conservative government’s agenda.Helen Fenwick, Professor of Law, Durham UniversityAlex Nurse, Lecturer in Planning, University of LiverpoolAndrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkAnya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, University of SalfordArman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law, University of SurreyBenjamin Bowman, Teaching Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of BathCaitlin McLean, Ailsa McKay Postdoctoral Fellow in Economics, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityImran Awan, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology, Birmingham City UniversityKatharine Jones, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry UniversityMichael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesMichael Jopling, Professor in Education, Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, Northumbria University, NewcastlePeter Lynch, Senior Lecturer, Politics, University of StirlingPrem Sikka, Professor of Accounting, Essex Business School, University of EssexRoy Sainsbury, Director of Social Policy Research Unit, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkStephen Roper, Professor of Enterprise and Director of the Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick Business School, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410142015-05-05T16:12:12Z2015-05-05T16:12:12ZThis election could decide whether arts win big, or get the boot<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80425/original/image-20150505-16630-vg0z5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your PM, painting by numbers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/4734740302/sizes/l">The Prime Minister's Office/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When survey organisations ask the general public about the most important issues facing the country, arts and culture don’t appear on the list. While you’ll consistently find <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3542/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March-2015-Issues-Index.aspx">immigration, the NHS, and the economy at the top</a>, arts and culture don’t even appear in <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/March15Issuestabs.pdf">Ipsos Mori’s tables</a>, coming behind bird flu, foot and mouth, and constitutional reform. </p>
<p>And although arts don’t appear on the headline summaries of the major party manifestos at this election, they do appear in the manifestos themselves, and at greater length than in 2010. Given the existence of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DMCS), it’s reasonable that the parties explain what they’d do with it. Indeed, the Arts Council for England has <a href="http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts-council-news/summary-party-manifestos-what-they-mean-arts-cultu/">already summarised</a> the major manifesto pledges, and The Stage <a href="https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/2015/general-election-arts-policies/">has interviewed</a> spokespeople from seven political parties. </p>
<h2>Populist policy</h2>
<p>What’s striking about the 2015 manifestos for the three main parties – Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats – is that they all pledge free admission to national museums near the top of their arts and culture sections. </p>
<p>This is a popular policy that only has mixed empirical support: while <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329777">some literature</a> suggests that free admission broadens the base of people who visit museums and galleries, <a href="http://ipsos-reach.com/DownloadPublication/541_sri-the-impact-of-free-entry-to-museums-2003.pdf">other evidence</a> suggests that free admission merely increases the number of visits from people who’d have gone anyway.</p>
<p>The Conservatives and Labour also both allude to regional inequality: Labour states that one of the goals of free admission to national museums is “to ensure that our great works of art and national heritage can be enjoyed in all parts of the country”; the Conservatives state that “we have made sure that arts funding benefits the whole of the UK.” </p>
<p><a href="http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/sites/artsprofessional.co.uk/files/rebalancing_our_cultural_capital.pdf">Recent research</a> shows that London receives far more cultural subsidy than any of the other English regions. And yet, of the two new buildings promised by the Conservatives, one is in London (“a modern world class concert hall”) and the other is in Manchester (“a new theatre, The Factory”). These investments are likely to reinforce geographical cultural inequality, rather than mitigate it. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gather round, London crowds – there’s plenty for you to see.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_annemarie/9001102691/sizes/l">Andrew and Annemarie/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Arts for all</h2>
<p>But the manifestos are not all identical. Labour’s manifesto is distinctive in addressing the current inequalities in access to working in arts and culture, highlighted by <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-james-blunt-making-it-in-the-arts-is-easier-if-you-come-from-the-right-background-36519">the debate</a> over James Blunt and Eddie Redmayne as our exemplars of success. Following on from the <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/">Warwick Commission on the Future of Cultural Value</a>, and Ed Miliband’s “<a href="http://www.labourartsalliance.org.uk/text_of_ed_miliband_s_arts_for_all_speech">arts for all</a>” speech, the Labour party addresses the issue in its manifesto by promising “a universal entitlement to a creative education”. </p>
<p>It adds that “institutions that receive arts funding will be required to open up their doors to young people, and we will work with public bodies to rebalance arts funding across the country”. How this will fit with arts subjects’ absence from the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schools">English Baccalaureate</a> remains to be seen. </p>
<p>There are echoes of this in the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf?1429028133">Lib Dems’ manifesto</a>. They believe that “the arts have an essential role in the education system”. Their manifesto is the only one that addresses the arts outside of the arts and culture section, saying in the health section that they’ll “promote evidence-based ‘social prescribing’ of sport, arts and other activity to help tackle obesity, mental health problems and other health conditions, and work to widen the evidence base”. </p>
<p>This ties into existing measures such as the <a href="http://whatworkswellbeing.org/">What Works Centre for Wellbeing</a>. Beyond this, the Lib Dems’ manifesto has little on cultural matters to distinguish itself from the Conservative one.</p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto’s focus is more on funding. Beyond its promises for tax relief for the creative industries, the party’s claim that the coalition has sustained arts funding over the last parliament <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-arts-funding-been-decimated-or-protected-40037">has been disputed</a>. This makes it difficult to credit the remainder of this section of the manifesto. </p>
<p>Beyond their capital pledges, what’s distinctive about the Conservatives’ position is their focus on digital issues. In particular, they focus on what’s available through public libraries, and presenting ISPs with filtering and blocking requirements.</p>
<h2>To spend or not to spend?</h2>
<p>While the SNP doesn’t address issues of arts and culture in its manifesto at all, it’s not fair to infer that these aren’t priorities for the party. Arts and culture are devolved in Scotland, and so arguably they are not appropriate content for a Westminster manifesto. </p>
<p>The Plaid Cymru manifesto has a lot in common with the other parties. It includes promises for access through education, free admission to national museums, as well as Welsh-specific pledges such as supporting a Cardiff bid for European Capital of Culture.</p>
<p>UKIP provides the most abrupt answer to questions about the arts: it would abolish the DCMS. UKIP’s manifesto pledges to abolish government departments when their essential powers and functions can be merged into other departments. The DMCS, along with others like the Departments for Energy and Climate Change, and International Development, are earmarked for the chop. The remainder of the cultural part of their manifesto focuses mainly on heritage: how they would establish a minister for heritage and tourism, how they’d regenerate seaside towns, and how they’d “save the pub”. </p>
<p>Finally, the <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf">Greens’ manifesto</a> is the only one to include specific numbers that would be spent on the arts. The party pledges an increase of £500 million a year nationally, and reinstatement of funding at local authority level. Given this, the lack of detail on how this money would be spent, beyond “helping to keep local museums, theatres, libraries and art galleries open” is surprising. Their pledges focus on broadcasting and media, rather than what’s covered in other party manifestos. </p>
<p>Yet the Greens’ position on the cultural industries has had the most scrutiny of any party. Their manifesto states they’d “make copyright shorter in length, fair and flexible, and prevent patents applying to software”. <a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html">Documents on their website</a> suggest copyright would be limited to 14 years. </p>
<p>This plan has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/green-party-plan-to-limit-copyright-attacked-by-writers-and-artists">attacked by artists and writers</a>, who point out that this would have major effects on their income. Other <a href="http://www.danielbye.co.uk/blog/copyright-and-all-that">authors have suggested</a> it sits inside a broader approach to freeing artists from commercial forces. More immediately, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, <a href="http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/copyright-standing-up-for-brightons-creative-industries-artists-and-writers">has indicated</a> that this isn’t a core policy and is likely to be changed.</p>
<p>How much this matters remains to be seen. The fact that, relative to 2010, arts and culture have had so much prominence in the manifestos is striking. Given that the result after May 7 will almost certainly be a hung parliament, it is unclear how many of these policies will remain through coalition agreements. </p>
<p>On the one hand, it is unlikely that arts policy is a red line for any party. But on the other – with a handful of exceptions – these policies are hardly so far apart that agreement is impossible. What seems most likely is a raise in profile of the role of arts in education. But as everyone keeps saying, anything could happen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41014/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Arts and culture may not be big ticket policies, but the stakes are high in this election.Mark Taylor, Lecturer in Quantitative Research Methods, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/412162015-05-04T17:10:56Z2015-05-04T17:10:56ZTories and Lib Dems play catch-up with Labour on policies for women<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80312/original/image-20150504-8387-1vc2x9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should she buy it?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/libdems/17026123738/">Liberal Democrats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Which party has the best policy offerings for women? An analysis of the manifestos of the three main parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) reveals how their policies measure up.</p>
<h2>The Economy</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/21/spending-cuts-women-report">Women have not fared well</a> under the recent bout of austerity, with women comprising a disproportionate number of the staff, users and recipients of the public services and benefits that were cut. The government was criticised for neglecting the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/22/yvette-cooper-fawcett-society-cuts">gendered impact of its austerity programme</a>, with the lack of women involved in the decision-making process being cited as part of the problem. Will the parties offer women a better deal this time around?</p>
<p>The Conservatives claim they will, with a celebratory rhetoric arguing that things have never been better for women and that they seek “full, genuine gender equality”. But there is no recognition of the damage done to women, and the manifesto promises more cuts, especially to welfare (which will hit women hardest), along with more promises to axe red tape for businesses (which risks including cutting equality measures). </p>
<p>Labour is threatening to cap child benefit rises for two years, which will also hit women hardest, though the party also wants to raise the minimum wage, which will benefit women. The Lib Dems make somewhat unconvincing claims of getting an extra million women into work via more jobs, better childcare and better back-to-work support. They also want better gender balance in apprenticeships and, like the Tories, want to see more women on boards and other leadership roles – though, like the Tories, they are coy on the details of how to achieve this. </p>
<p>All three parties want companies with more than 250 employees to publish their pay gaps. Labour’s claim is most convincing here given that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/16/labour-transparency-gender-pay-gap-uk">the party already legislated for this</a> under the 2010 Equality Act. The other parties have stalled on its implementation ever since, thus making their current promises seem, at best, opportunistic.</p>
<h2>Parenting and care provision</h2>
<p>The three parties are trying to outdo each other on the question of childcare. The current government introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for working parents of 3-4 year olds – a welcome, if insufficient, measure. </p>
<p>Labour has long pledged to extend this to 25 hours a week. The Tories, not to be outdone, upped the ante to 30 hours a week. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have taken a different approach, offering 20 hours a week but extending this to apply from the end of parental leave. This approach is arguably the most logical; childcare is most expensive in the first three years of a child’s life, and the lack of support during this time pushes many parents – usually mothers – to take an extended career break that can be very damaging for their re-entry to the workforce. </p>
<p>However, a good idea in principle looks unlikely to be achieved in practice, with the Lib Dems themselves acknowledging that it is only a “goal”, with much less ambitious plans in the first instance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Everyone has something to offer on childcare.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/13240262225/in/photolist-maZMCk-gXNQ3C-mb1ze8-maZPjr-mb2txC-maZNFc-mb1wYX-mb2rXy-mb2sQf-mb1weF">Number 10</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour’s other childcare offer is for all primary schools to provide wraparound care from 8am to 6pm, a policy also offered by UKIP. This is a great idea, although the suggestion that it will be staffed primarily by volunteers smacks a bit of the Big Society, with people (usually women) expected to <a href="http://www.workingmums.co.uk/the-big-society-will-hit-women-and-children-badly-claims-tuc-head-of-equality/">provide public services for free</a>. (The Conservatives are still banging the Big Society volunteering drum, with no recognition of the gendered consequences.)</p>
<p>The Conservatives and Lib Dems are promising to exempt parental pay from benefits capping, while Labour are offering to double the length and monetary value of statutory paternity leave. They also want to explore offering unpaid leave for grandparents wishing to be involved in childcare. The Lib Dems are offering a month of leave that is ringfenced for fathers, a policy that has <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15">worked well in Scandinavia</a>. The Tories and Lib Dems are both offering more mental health support to women during and after pregnancy, while Labour promise 3000 more midwives. Meanwhile, Labour and the Lib Dems are also offering more support for carers, the <a href="http://www.carers.org/key-facts-about-carers">majority of whom are women</a>.</p>
<h2>Violence against women</h2>
<p>Although the universal <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.00258/abstract">condemnation of domestic violence</a> is only relatively recent, it is now an issue on which nearly everyone agrees. The Tories boast of having a good track record in this area, although the evidence <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/heather-mcrobie/austerity-and-domestic-violence-mapping-damage">speaks to the contrary</a>, and their emphasis on promoting marriage via tax incentives also discourages women from leaving violent relationships. Their claims to further protect women therefore ring hollow. </p>
<p>Labour does not offer a great deal more, focused primarily on low-cost initiatives and on changing mindsets, although the party does also offer a National Refuge Fund and wider access to Legal Aid for victims of domestic violence. </p>
<p>The Lib Dem offerings also focus on education and prevention, but their ineffective handling of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11045562/Dropping-action-against-Lord-Rennard-will-force-women-to-leave-Lib-Dems-in-astounding-numbers-alleged-victim-warns.html">Lord Rennard scandal</a> casts serious doubt over the party leadership’s understanding of respectful relationships.</p>
<p>A related theme in all manifestos, sometimes in the same section as domestic violence and sometimes in the international development section, is the theme of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and forced marriages. These are always popular targets as they <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukip-uses-womens-rights-as-a-trojan-horse-to-attack-minorities-40096">appeal both to liberals and to closet racists</a>. </p>
<p>The Lib Dems in particular focus heavily on these themes. Labour focuses instead on ending detention of pregnant asylum seekers and those who have been the victims of sexual abuse or trafficking. They also adopt a well-intended, if somewhat paternalist, stance towards protecting women and children overseas from violent conflict, eradicating poverty and promoting education. The Conservatives also mention protecting victims of sexual violence in the conflict in Syria.</p>
<p>Finally, on the other side of the penal system, the Conservatives want to explore initiatives to prevent the separation of female convicts from their children, while the Lib Dems want better rehabilitation of female offenders (without specifying why this would not also apply to men).</p>
<h2>Women’s representation</h2>
<p>All parties want more women in parliament (or so they claim). The Conservatives are fielding <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tories-boast-of-record-numbers-of-female-candidates-but-only-a-quarter-are-in-winnable-seats-10164663.html">more women candidates than ever before</a>, though often in unwinnable seats. The Lib Dems, whose track record in this area is set to get <a href="http://may2015.com/parties/the-lib-dems-are-set-to-have-just-one-female-mp-after-may-2015/">even worse</a>, speak only of making parliament more family-friendly and exploring job-sharing for MPs. Labour has by far the best record in this regard, and women have more input into their policies than in any other party, which <a href="http://www.feminizingpolitics.ac.uk/2015/04/15/winning-womens-votes/">Claire Annesley and Francesca Gains</a> argue is key to ensuring that women’s needs are actually met.</p>
<p>Overall, Labour continues to be in the lead in all these areas, although the other parties are trying to catch up. The Tories have some progressive offerings in their manifesto, though their economic policies continue to be punitive to women and the gendered impact of austerity continues to be imposed by a male-dominated cabinet. The Lib Dems have some interesting and innovative ideas – more than could be discussed here – but their track record fails to impress, and many of their commitments are weakly phrased as aspirations rather than promises. </p>
<p>It is good that <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-major-uk-parties-are-trying-to-court-womens-votes-41145">all the parties are eager</a> to make promises to women – but they would do well to remember that actions speak louder than words.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41216/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Which party has the best policy offerings for women? An analysis of the manifestos of the three main parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) reveals how their policies measure up. The Economy…Rainbow Murray, Reader, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/411042015-05-04T05:17:31Z2015-05-04T05:17:31ZAll for English devolution – but what about English democracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80109/original/image-20150501-23842-v9oijy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Flying high.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=4067419">Jeff Buck/Geograph</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>English devolution has emerged as a prominent feature of the 2015 general election campaign for a number of reasons. One is the ongoing process of devolution that has been taking place across the UK, with the formation of the assemblies for Northern Ireland and Wales, and the Scottish parliament. Another is the aftershock of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Throughout this time, England has also solidified as a distinct national political community.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x/abstract">Research</a> indicates that over the past decade or so we have witnessed the progressive “Anglicisation” of the Westminster-based unionist parties. This means that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats have all become more focused on England, in their political outlook. </p>
<p>But up until now, these parties have sought to avoid the complications and risks of large-scale internal organisational reform in England. They have lacked the appropriate party structures, leadership or explicit policy agendas to properly engage with the complex set of “English Questions”, which have emerged in a post-devolution UK.</p>
<p>And yet, with the general election looming large, the issues concerning the role and place of England within an increasingly decentralised UK have gained traction among the public. This has further pushed questions of English national and regional political reform into the realms of party politics. </p>
<p>All the main political parties have now overtly embraced the narrative of English devolution – which, for the first time, features prominently in all the electoral manifestos. So what exactly do the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have planned for England?</p>
<h2>What’s on offer</h2>
<p>The Conservatives have put the English question at the core of their electoral message. Alongside their main <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">manifesto</a>, they have also launched their first ever <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/david-cameron-set-out-conservative-proposals-english-votes-english-laws-1498093">English manifesto</a> (although this is lacking substance, and no actual copy is available in print form or online). </p>
<p>In essence, the Conservative approach to English devolution focuses on three themes: a better and more balanced economy; bespoke Growth Deals and decentralisation of powers to (large) cities which choose to have elected mayor; and English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). The main manifesto also refers to “a core Conservative belief: power to the people” which is claimed to be at the base of their devolution strategy. </p>
<p>And yet, it is somewhat difficult to understand how such value squares with an approach to devolution in England which is based on negotiations between elites, and imposed from above without any public consultation.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ge15.demsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Labour-Manifesto-2015.pdf">Labour Party manifesto</a> places emphasis on the need to “end a century of centralisation” in England, by means of a devolution agenda based on three principles: city and county regions as <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-a-northern-powerhouse-doesnt-stop-at-manchester-33485">recipients of decentralised powers</a>; an English Devolution Act to set the terms of the powers and resources to be passed down to city and county regions, and to put in place a system of checks and balances (for example, an English Regional Cabinet Committee); and a New English Deal, aimed at empowering individuals and communities. However, it is not specified how the latter would take place, in practice. </p>
<p>At UK level, the party also proposes to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and the Regions, so as to represent every part of the UK. But in the absence of directly elected regional assemblies in England, it is unclear how Labour plans to bring together incongruent levels of territorial government: think of Scotland compared to, say, the Leeds City Region.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ge15.demsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Liberal-Democrat-Manifesto-2015.pdf">Liberal Democrat</a> approach to English concerns is based on five interconnected devolution proposals: EVEL; a constitutional convention; the local level as the main recipient of decentralised powers; more City Deals (like <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-a-northern-powerhouse-doesnt-stop-at-manchester-33485">Devo Manc</a>) to prompt economic growth; and “devolution on demand”, to allow councils to take control of the services that matter most to them.</p>
<h2>A constitutional convention</h2>
<p>Both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos include calls for a constitutional convention, albeit in slightly different forms. Labour put forward proposals for a people-led UK constitutional convention, to consider issues such as the role of English MPs in scrutinising legislation that affects only England. This would seem to suggest that the public should be actively involved in the discussion concerning the constitutional settlement of the UK. </p>
<p>The Lib Dems would also seek to establish a constitutional convention, but theirs would take input from political parties, academic and civil society groups, as well as the British public, and aim to draw up a full constitution for a federal UK. </p>
<p>But in practice, both of these proposals fail to live up to the high-minded rhetoric of democracy in which they are couched. Constitutional conventions like these would merely entail a discussion of the implications of a new constitutional settlement – which, however, would be ultimately devised by party elites, and not by the people.</p>
<p>All of this goes to show that the three manifestos have much in common with regard to the English question. They share a view that devolution in England should be primarily about economic development, and recognise the presence of a North-South divide within England. </p>
<p>But their plans continue to be based on the assumption that Westminster is better placed to decide the most suitable level of devolution, when it comes to resources and powers. On the issue of how to rebalance the role of England in the union, they all more or less overtly favour EVEL. Yet this solution does not equate to any real form of devolution, and does not do much to improve the territorial governance of England. It keeps decision making at the political centre, in Westminster. </p>
<p>Beyond their agreement on the need to give people more powers, the parties’ plans become more blurred, with top-down and elite-led approaches taking precedence, even within the narrative of those parties promoting constitutional conventions. While each party has started to recognise the importance of territorial politics in England, they still struggle to both let go of power, and to come to terms with the democratic aspect of devolution.</p>
<h2>Voices of democracy?</h2>
<p>The only advocates of the view that <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/arianna-giovannini/devolution-in-north-of-england-time-to-bring-people-into-debate">devolution in England is not just about reviving economies but also about improving democracy</a> are the regionalist parties based precisely in the areas that the mainstream parties are trying to “put back on track” with their devolution proposals. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/">Yorkshire First</a>, the <a href="http://www.thenortheastparty.org.uk/0191/NorthEastParty_Manifesto_2015.pdf">North East Party</a>, the <a href="http://www.campaignforthenorth.com/blog">Campaign for the North</a> and <a href="https://www.mebyonkernow.org/documents/mk_manifesto_2015.pdf">Mebyon Kernow</a> offer an alternative programme of decentralisation, which is intrinsically bottom up, and based on the establishment of directly elected regional assemblies, with powers equal to those of the Scottish parliament. This is understood as a key means to reinvigorate democracy, improve local government and, as a result, boost the economy. But it remains to be seen whether these political forces will gain enough momentum, either in the election or in the post-May 7 scenario, to make their democratic devolution claims resonate in the corridors of Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All political parties are sitting up and paying attention to ‘English questions’, but only some offer a truly democratic approach.Arianna Giovannini, Lecturer in Politics, University of HuddersfieldAndrew Mycock, Reader in Politics, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402602015-04-27T14:45:21Z2015-04-27T14:45:21ZManifesto Check: Tory plans to tackle police and prison corruption are doomed to fail<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78086/original/image-20150415-31660-1rdoc4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Conservatives pledge to get police in line in bid to improve public confidence</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3045270">Oast House Archive</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Where’s the money coming from?” is the base-beat of this campaign, and the criminal justice section of the <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">Conservative manifesto</a> is accordingly generous with rhetoric, stingy with commitments. It is striking that unlike some earlier elections – notably that which returned New Labour in 1997 – crime and justice have not been given spotlight places. </p>
<h2>Treading carefully</h2>
<p>There has been a substantial fall in estimated crime according to the widely respected <a href="http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk/">Crime Survey</a>, and other issues have largely elbowed crime aside. It is understandable that the incumbents would point to the crime reduction and claim credit. Criminologists would observe that crime has fallen across the advanced economies, and most would acknowledge that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/24/fall-uk-crime-rate-baffles-experts">they can offer only partial explanations</a> for the drop. </p>
<p>When it comes to prison expenditure, all the parties have to tread carefully: it costs <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128112038/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/noms/annual-report-accounts-2010-11.htm">just short of £40,000 annually for an ordinary prison place</a> for males, and much more for high security and for women. Even the western world’s prison cheerleader – the United States (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm">around 2 million incarcerated in prisons and jails</a>) – has stabilised its numbers and is moving away from trying to build a way out of crime by prison construction.</p>
<h2>Out with the old</h2>
<p>The Conservatives are right to say that money can be saved by closing old and inefficient prisons. This is a truth that has been recognised <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1008259029669">for well over 100 years</a>, since the local gaols were nationalised and scores of expensive, unsanitary and sometimes inhumane institutions shut down. To continue the programme of modernisation is sensible. There will almost certainly be long-term savings from cost efficiencies, arising from lower per capita costs in larger institutions. But there will also be some short and possibly medium-term costs as some old and irremediable prisons are closed, and medium sized institutions upgraded. A much more certain way to effect savings would be to reduce the rate of imprisonment – but it is politically taboo even to whisper this.</p>
<p>Other prison-related claims in the manifesto are vague, or refer to measures already being taken. These include drug-tests in prisons (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322190/fact-sheet-drug-testing-in-prisons.pdf">now universal</a>), better technology to block mobile phone signals and <a href="https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2011/psi-67-2011-searching-person.doc">better body-scanning</a>. </p>
<p>The Conservatives’ “strategy” to tackle corruption in prisons is meaningless: corruption has been the accompaniment of imprisonment since the door was slammed on the first prisoner. It is pernicious and, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thousands-of-police-accused-of-corruption--just-13-convicted-7786257.html">like police corruption</a>, ineradicable. It must therefore continue to be anticipated, and dealt with.</p>
<p>The home secretary’s hand can be seen in the more impressive proposals on policing, which go some way to offset the manifesto’s uncritical references to “brilliant policemen and women”. <a href="http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/4/744.abstract">Public confidence in the police has fallen</a>, yet politicians have been reluctant to take steps to implement real reform: Theresa May has been a notable exception. The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/30/theresa-may-reform-police-stop-and-search-powers">closer regulation of stop and search</a> has been one of May’s priorities, and the need for legislation if change is not forthcoming is one of her signature arguments.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40260/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seán McConville is a member of the Magistates' Association.</span></em></p>When it comes to crime and justice, the Conservatives don’t convince.Seán McConville, Professor of Law and Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/406722015-04-27T05:14:45Z2015-04-27T05:14:45ZManifesto Check: Tory tax policies are out of focus<p>Over the past five years of coalition government, most major economic policies have been driven by the Conservatives. Only a few changes – such as increasing the point at which income tax is paid – have come from the Liberal Democrats. So, when it comes to setting out plans for the next five years, the Conservatives are best placed to know the true state of the nation’s finances. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">this manifesto</a>, the party could have set out a clear, honest, economic roadmap. It is disappointing that it hasn’t done so. This is probably because many voters would not like the answers, but it leaves the party’s key economic polices looking random, and lacking a coherent strategy.</p>
<p>Ultimately, any government has budget constraints. Therefore, what is spent in one area of government, results in budgetary cuts in another, or in higher taxes. The Conservatives say that they will be able to raise money via a clampdown on tax avoidance and efficiency gains across departments. Sadly, both of these holy grails of government are almost impossible to achieve, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/20/ifs-budget-2014-promises-uncertain-savings-forecasts">never generate</a> the the revenues governments think they will. </p>
<p>Some of the party’s key policies, such as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31942291">the Northern Powerhouse</a>, or investing £100 billion in UK infrastructure, are sensible. There is a real need to balance the economy away from London and the South East, and to upgrade much of the Victorian infrastructure that the UK still runs on. </p>
<p>But how this is paid for, given that pensioners have been protected with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25609485">the triple-lock</a>, the 40p rate of income tax will not kick in until someone is earning over £50,000, and income tax, VAT, and National Insurance are to be fixed at their current levels, remains to be seen.</p>
<h2>Fractured fundamentals</h2>
<p>One major issue that has occurred over this parliament, and looks set to continue over the next, is the fracturing of some of the fundamentals of tax policy. In tax, the idea is to capture flows of revenue. But an increasing number of flows are being removed from tax, and this is particularly true of wealth.</p>
<p>For instance, one of The Conservatives’ key proposals is to increase <a href="https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/leaving-assets-spouse-civil-partner">the inheritance tax threshold</a> to £1 million. But this is a policy which benefits only a handful of people. The average UK house price is £286,000; as a result, with the current combined threshold sitting at £650,000, the vast majority of people will clearly not pay inheritance tax on their estates. However, the government has also set pension pots outside of inheritance as well. As a result, there are going to be some very large inter-generational wealth flows for a very select few that are simply missed, which lowers tax revenues.</p>
<h2>EU uncertainty</h2>
<p>One final issue that has dogged the Conservative party for decades is that of Europe. The fact that an “in/out” referendum is going to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11324069/David-Cameron-a-Conservative-government-could-hold-EU-referendum-before-2017.html">be on the table</a> is a major economic issue. The relative costs and benefits of EU membership are hugely complex. But the promise of a referendum adds a level of uncertainty to the UK economy, which it can ill afford. The UK economy has some “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/10599024/The-green-shoots-of-recovery-need-their-place-in-the-sun.html">green shoots</a>” but many do not feel better off, even if <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31480352">the data suggests they are</a>. </p>
<p>Given the need for deficit reduction, the huge debt overhang that exists in the private sector, the need for increasing wages, and to ensure people feel better off; increasing uncertainty is not good for business and growth.</p>
<p>All manifestos are written to get political parties elected. But the extent to which this motivation pervades the Conservative’s manifesto is concerning. So, while many of the “benefits” of a Conservative government have been clearly set out, the costs and the implications for taxation, the exchequer, and the size of the state <a href="http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/post-election-austerity-parties-plans-compared">have not</a>.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40672/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain Clacher does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>The Conservatives have missed their chance to map out a coherent tax strategy.Iain Clacher, Associate Professor in Accounting and Finance, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404002015-04-24T09:33:43Z2015-04-24T09:33:43ZManifesto Check: Tories’ sport manifesto is committed to the elite only<p>In its <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">manifesto</a>, the Conservative Party plans on investing in primary school sport, improving community facilities, investing in sport to improve health and increasing the involvement of women. </p>
<p>It is evident that the Conservatives place an emphasis on an active life, but they fail to check decreasing participation in flagship sports, and the deep impact which austerity has had on sport participation and facilities. A properly integrated, properly funded, cross-departmental plan for sport remains <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/blog/2015/mar/25/olympic-legacy-london-2012-idle-boasts">as elusive as ever</a>.</p>
<h2>Prioritising the elite</h2>
<p>Crucial areas of participation, grassroots sport, schools and health need much more than what is in this manifesto. Flagship high-participation sports such as <a href="http://www.sportsthinktank.com/blog/2015/03/postponed-due-to-pitch-conditions-grassroots-football-and-sport-participation">football</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/31037310">swimming</a> are declining. Over the past year, the number of people playing sport for at least half an hour per week <a href="https://www.sportengland.org/media/650218/1x30_overall_factsheet_aps8.pdf">has decreased overall by 125,100</a>, largely as a result of a decline in the number of people who are swimming regularly. Worryingly, there was a decline in participation among those in the lowest socio-economic groups of more than <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/blog/2015/mar/25/olympic-legacy-london-2012-idle-boasts">470,000</a>. </p>
<p>While the Conservatives show a commitment to support elite sports funding as part of the legacy, some sports have had their funding removed entirely. It is perhaps <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/30/basketball-funding-loss-fury-grassroots-inner-city-teenagers">basketball</a>, which best demonstrates the Conservatives’ lack of planning. The manifesto talks of the National Basketball Association playing in British inner-city stadiums, with the aim of establishing a franchise. </p>
<p>But this message conflicts with the last government’s approach to grassroots participants: as it stands, 217,900 people aged 14 and over play basketball at least once a week, and the sport receives £9 million in public funding from Sports England. Meanwhile, canoeing receives more than £20 million in funding from UK Sport, while participation in this sport stands at only 45,700.</p>
<h2>Commitment to schools</h2>
<p>The Tories also plan to support primary school sport with £150 million per year, paid directly to head teachers, until 2020, to support a minimum two hours of high-class sport and PE each week. This is a substantial commitment to engage young children in sport. This is needed, as in January 2015, a <a href="http://www.youthsporttrust.org/media/22091985/national_pe__school_sport_and_physical_activity_survey_report.pdf">survey reported</a> that on average pupils across all key stages were offered less than two hours of PE per week. There was also a marked decline in school links with outside clubs; a major factor not addressed in the manifesto.</p>
<p>There is a pledge to improve community sports facilities in more than 30 cities across England. In 2015, experts noted that <a href="http://www.sportsthinktank.com/blog/2015/03/postponed-due-to-pitch-conditions-grassroots-football-and-sport-participation">local authorities are core providers</a> of grassroots sports. But these bodies are experiencing problems relating to current economic climate, and have ultimately had to <a href="https://theconversation.com/austerity-cuts-to-local-leisure-services-is-a-false-economy-33320">reduce costs</a>. A result of this is reduced investment in grassroots sports provision and/or increases in pitch fees and the <a href="http://www.apse.org.uk/apse/index.cfm/research/current-research-programme/local-authority-sport-and-recreation-services-in-england-where-next/local-authority-sport-and-recreation-services-in-england-where-next/">cost of facility hire</a>.</p>
<p>While it is difficult to measure the impact that closure of facilities has on society, it will certainly have a negative impact on <a href="http://www.sportanddev.org/en/newsnviews/news/?7599/1/Two-year-social-cohesion-programme-by-UNICEF-and-Generations-for-Peace-to-benefit-five-thousand">social cohesion and well-being</a>. The investment in <a href="http://blakedown.co.uk/3G-pitches.html">3G pitches</a> is welcomed. But there is a missed opportunity to put in place a real grassroots agenda, which could have been funded by the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/11/premier-league-tv-deal-sky-bt">2014 BT/SKY football TV deal</a>. </p>
<p>The Tories promise to continue to invest in participation and physical activity. Recognising sport’s vital benefits to health is common ground with the main parties. The role of exercise in controlling diabetes is specifically mentioned. The <a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2003/en/">World Health Report</a> from 2003 found that physical inactivity is responsible for 1% of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost globally, and 3% of those lost in established market economies. The manifesto fails to make <a href="http://www.bhfactive.org.uk/userfiles/Documents/eonomiccosts.pdf">the link</a> between the cost burden of inactivity on the NHS. Scottish data indicates that for every £1 spent on reducing inactivity levels, £8 <a href="http://www.healthscotland.com/documents/6262.aspx">is saved</a>.</p>
<p>The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic impact and legacy are also central to the Conservatives sport pledges, underpinning much of their future plans. Through international sporting mega events, the manifesto suggests that the party will maximise the opportunities for tourism and jobs. But no pledges are forthcoming to demonstrate how they plan to deliver this promise. Recent evidence actually shows some sporting events can be <a href="http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/01/never-host-a-mega-event/384926/">bad deals for cities</a>.</p>
<p>The manifesto also promises to lift the number of women on national sports governing bodies to at least 25% by 2017 and seek to increase participation in sport by women and girls. This hardly seems ambitious or fair in terms of gender equality. The SNP, for example, are recommending 50-50 quotas on all boards. </p>
<p>The UK Conservative party manifesto for 2015 promises a better and more secure Britain in terms of sport. But there is a failure to find solutions for declining participation rates in key sports, and unhealthy inactivity levels. The insecure future for grassroots sport also needs a plan, and quickly.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40400/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Jarvie receives funding from charities and research councils. He currently sits on the board of sportscotland and has provided independent advice on sports policy to governments both within and external to the UK. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Widdop receives funding from charities and research councils. He has previously provided independent advice and consultation services to the Scottish Government on sport and leisure consumption.</span></em></p>Conservative sport manifesto puts the elite ahead of the grassroots.Grant Jarvie, Chair of Sport, The University of EdinburghPaul Widdop, Research Fellow in Cultural and Sport Sociology , Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405872015-04-22T10:03:48Z2015-04-22T10:03:48ZWhat’s wrong with political manifestos, and how to fix them<p>The flurry of 2015 election manifesto releases has come to a close and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">much analysis</a> has already been offered of what the various parties are offering. Understandably much of the focus has been on the likelihood these policies will win votes in what is surely the most tightly fought electoral contest for a generation. </p>
<p>But should we not be asking a deeper question about these manifestos: how far do they allow the country to actually be governed? Too little thought has been given to whether the policies contained within them can actually be implemented in practice. </p>
<p>Part of the issue is inevitably fiscal. Ed Balls, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work-party-politics/articles/opinion/ed-balls-mp-obr-should-audit-all-manifestos">sensibly argued</a> that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility should independently scrutinise the fiscal plans of each of the parties, making the implications of each prospectus for taxing and spending more transparent. </p>
<p>But it’s also important to ensure that policies can be delivered in the real world. Too many fiascos have originated from parties failing to adequately stress-test new policy ideas. Take, for example, the Conservatives’ “community charge” (otherwise known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-what-does-alex-salmond-owe-the-poll-tax-25179">poll tax</a>) from the 1987 election manifesto. That later became unworkable due to its unfairness. Then there were Labour’s individual learning accounts, which had to be abandoned in 2001 following widespread <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/25/furthereducation.educationincrisis">financial fraud</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that once commitments are enshrined in party manifestos they are then difficult to break, even if they look increasingly unworkable, or do not provide value for money. </p>
<p>What’s the answer? The civil service should have a formal role in working with politicians and advisers to scrutinise policy ideas prior to their inclusion in manifestos. At present, there are <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN03318/preelection-contacts-between-civil-servants-and-opposition-parties">rules</a> governing the process by which the major opposition party consults Whitehall officials, but in practice these amount to cursory discussions between shadow cabinet ministers and permanent secretaries. The terms of engagement remain too limited.</p>
<p>Prior to 1997, civil servants in major government departments were forced to consult <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v17/n05/rw-johnson/megalo">Will Hutton’s The State We’re In</a> to discover more about New Labour’s plans for government. Little did they know that Blair’s Labour Party had already jettisoned many of Hutton’s ideas for a “stakeholder economy” on the basis that they might concede too much power to the trade unions. </p>
<p>Equally, in 2010 a profusion of books about Cameron’s vision of the Big Society didn’t provide much of a guide to the coalition government’s actual programme. Even the government of the day cannot involve the civil service formally in manifesto preparation for the next parliament, as I remember from my time as a special adviser prior to the 2010 general election. </p>
<p>Whether in government or opposition, the civil service is often left in the dark about each of the major parties’ intentions. This is dysfunctional and inimical to good government. Politicians rely on civil servants to turn abstract ideas into practical policy. </p>
<p>The Office for Budgetary Responsibility and key departments must be allowed to work alongside all the main parties to produce a fiscal plan for their policies, as well as helping them work out how they’d actually implement them if they formed a government. </p>
<p>Now, more than ever, we need political parties that are sufficiently prepared for governing. The political environment has become considerably more complex as the result of greater devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as membership of the European Union. </p>
<p>Tony Blair admitted in his own memoirs that he had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11148564">little idea of how to govern</a> after being elected in 1997, never having run a large organisation before. The coalition government similarly faced huge obstacles after 2010, in part due to its lack of experience. Reforming Whitehall’s role in working with the major parties would help to remedy this gap in the governance of Britain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is a member of the Labour party. He is formally a government special adviser. </span></em></p>Civil servants are left out of manifesto writing, and we’re all worse off for it.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403992015-04-17T13:22:33Z2015-04-17T13:22:33ZManifesto Check: Tory housing policy won’t get generation rent onto the property ladder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78382/original/image-20150417-3238-lnv5lw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We haven't built enough council houses since the 60s.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Housing image via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Conversation’s Manifesto Check brings academic expertise to bear on the political parties’ key election pledges.</em></p>
<p>Increasing house prices, limited housing supply, and problems of affordability characterise the housing market; 30 years of very limited new building in social rented housing have led to increasing numbers of households in private renting and renting for longer. Limited wage growth and risk aversion by banks since the financial crisis has meant that saving for a deposit has become more challenging.</p>
<p>The Help to Buy policy introduced by the Coalition government has tried to address this issue effectively reducing the amount that borrowers need to pay upfront. The Conservative party has now indicated in its <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">manifesto</a> that it would retain this policy to 2020 if re-elected in 2015.</p>
<p>However the real issue remains on the supply side of the market. Too few houses are being built to meet demand and there are significant constraints on the supply of affordable housing. Previous legislation such as <a href="http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE">section 106 agreements</a> have failed to ensure the delivery of sufficient numbers of homes available for lower income groups who cannot afford to buy.</p>
<p>The Conservative party proposes to extend the Right to Buy scheme to tenants of Housing Associations. Many will remember this policy <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-housing-plan-is-a-blast-from-the-past-amid-a-21st-century-crisis-40178">originating with Margaret Thatcher</a>, who introduced right to buy for tenants of local authority houses. It proved hugely successful. But the best local authority homes have <a href="http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405131977.html">mostly been sold</a>. However the nature of social renting has changed and a higher proportion of tenants now <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5568/1/Ends_and_Means_The_future_roles_of_social_housing_in_England_1.pdf">rely on housing benefit</a> so it is difficult to see how they could access mortgage finance even with the offer of significant discounts on the price of this homes. </p>
<p>Housing Associations would also be placed in a difficult position as they lose rental income. Why would they want to build more affordable homes for rent if they are then forced to sell these homes at below market value? Where would sufficient funding come from to fill the shortfall? Unlike council houses, housing associations are not part of the public sector and from a legal perspective it is not clear that the government could tell them that ownership rights should be transferred.</p>
<p>The most acute housing pressures are felt in London and the south east. There is an added complexity due to the role of overseas buyers <a href="http://londonist.com/2013/08/foreign-investors-buy-almost-75-of-new-inner-london-homes.php">buying properties off-plan for investment assets</a>. The tenants for these homes would usually be highly paid and able to afford the high rents charged. Lower income groups would be priced out of the market and hence face significant housing pressures. Even skilled workers will continue to be priced out and face longer commuting times.</p>
<p>The decline in new house building is long term and has been noticeable since the almost complete <a href="https://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270">collapse in the construction of council housing since the 1980s</a>. Housing associations have added to the supply of affordable housing but not at the volumes of council house building programmes in the 1960s and 1970s. Brownfield sites have also added to construction costs and negatively impacted supply often due to requirements for site remediation. A further challenge is that new development has often been of flats rather than houses and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118280829">demand remains stronger</a> for the latter.</p>
<p>While most people still own their own homes, this proportion has been falling particularly among younger age groups, sometimes referred to as “<a href="https://theconversation.com/tories-offer-the-dream-of-home-ownership-but-do-britons-want-it-any-more-40211">generation rent</a>”. If this marks the beginning of a new trend then it would represent the biggest change in housing tenure since the interwar period. The idea of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-cameron-wants-a-property-owning-democracy-he-has-to-support-the-mansion-tax-40203">property owning democracy</a> may become unachievable if the problems on the supply side are not addressed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most of the best local authority homes were sold off under Thatcher: what’s left won’t help the housing crisis.Michael White, Director, Real Estate Economics and Investment Research Group, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402062015-04-16T16:30:10Z2015-04-16T16:30:10ZManifesto Check: the Conservatives take a combative approach to the EU<p>When it comes to Europe, gone are the euphemistic references to “balance of competences” and “renegotiating” European policy. Instead, the Conservative manifesto has returned to the two R’s of the pre-coalition era: referendum, and return of powers. The manifesto reflects the careful line trodden since 2010 by the Conservative leadership, between concessions to the eurosceptic wing of the party, and recognition of the concerns of different sections of business.</p>
<h2>Returning powers to the UK</h2>
<p>The Conservatives want control over two home office policy areas returned to a national level: immigration and human rights. The Tories criticise the Labour Party’s earlier agreement to lift controls on free movement. Yet the manifesto does not explain how controls on immigration can now be secured, which would be <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/04/01/reforming-laws-on-eu-free-movement-will-be-a-headache-for-any-future-british-government/">a difficult process</a> for any future government. </p>
<p>Instead, the Conservatives pledge new rules to curb immigrants’ rights to claim benefits. These proposals include in-work, top-up benefits, and are not a million miles away from <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/105262118234/launch-of-labours-second-election-pledge">Labour’s manifesto commitment</a> to link benefit entitlements to contributions. In fact, <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration">research has found</a> that migrants from EU countries contribute far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. So although such measures are politically symbolic, their financial impact is likely to be limited. </p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto also promises to scrap the <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a>, which the party has long opposed on the basis that it restricts national law-making; as seen, for example, in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31356895">row over prisoners’ voting rights</a>. </p>
<p>On other EU matters, such as the European arrest warrant (which the coalition government signed up for), the manifesto stays silent. This indicates an acceptance of the current situation, which could be <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/11/if-tory-mps-really-oppose-eu-integration-they-should-vote-against-the-european-arrest-warrant-today.html">politically controversial on the right of the party</a>.</p>
<h2>Fighting integration</h2>
<p>The manifesto presents an anti-regulatory approach to the single market, which is standard fare from the Conservatives. The party repeatedly refers to the UK’s outsider status, pledging to keep Britain out of the euro. The Conservatives promise to resist any attempts to erode the right of those outside the eurozone to protect their own monetary policy, and to fight against further integration. </p>
<p>In particular, the manifesto highlights the difficulty of preventing further eurozone integration, or altering the course of economic policy within the eurozone. It is true that further macroeconomic integration, or related regulatory activity, could affect countries which – like the UK – retain their own currency, but are still part of the single market. </p>
<p>This type of regulation has already posed problems for the British government. For example, curbs on bankers’ bonuses were introduced under regulation of financial markets, which is governed by single market rules, and therefore applies to all member states. The outgoing government <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/uk-eu-banks-bonuses-idUKKBN0M017I20150304">tried to stop them</a>, but were unable to. </p>
<p>Even more controversial is the financial transaction tax, which “was and is a top UK government priority to head off,” according to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/david-cameron-tax-havens-cayman-islands-david-maclean-lord-blencathra">letters from a former Tory home office minister</a>. A <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27218615">British attempt to challenge the measure</a> failed in April 2014, but given the political divisions over it, there is still <a href="http://www.ft.com/in-depth/financial-transaction-tax">political room</a> to limit its impact.</p>
<p>These examples raise the wider question of whether Britain wants to – or has the political capacity to – negotiate a more formal mechanism for having greater input into eurozone decision-making, or checking the regulatory impact of eurozone decisions on British policies and institutions. Britain has already won some formal safeguards on banking initiatives, but the relationship between the eurozone and the single market will remain an <a href="http://www.cer.org.uk/insights/will-eurozone-gang-britain">ongoing policy challenge</a> for British governments.</p>
<p>The manifesto is short on detail here, but maintains a maximalist position of British “veto”, including the claim that David Cameron is the only prime minister ever to have vetoed an EU treaty. This refers to Cameron’s move to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16104275">block the extension</a> of the Lisbon Treaty. This was not technically a veto, but rather a refusal to allow the council to open a procedure to revise the terms of the treaty. As it happened, the proposals were subsequently agreed upon by eurozone members outside the treaty. </p>
<p>Certainly, Britain’s outright refusal to entertain the idea of any major treaty revision has contributed to a more general feeling among EU leaders that <a href="http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/camerons-optimistic-risky-and-ambiguous.html">the time is not right</a> for wholesale treaty reform. In light of these observations, the language of veto appears calculated to appeal to the party faithful, rather than constituting a longer-term strategy.</p>
<p>Overall, in policy terms, there is not much in the manifesto to surprise. The categorical rejection of participation in bailouts, and in European defence and security integration does not set new “red lines”, but rather maintains the established position of the party’s leadership.</p>
<h2>In or out?</h2>
<p>The Conservative party’s main claim to a distinctive (albeit widely trailed) policy proposal is its pledge to call a referendum on membership by 2017, and to act on the outcome of that consultation. Although UKIP also campaigns on an in-out referendum, the Conservatives claim to be the only party able to deliver it. Of course, in setting out its own position on a referendum (yes, but on the assumption that it will yield an “out” vote), UKIP has opened the way to a possible tactical alliance with the Conservatives, but whether UKIP’s share of seats gives it power after May depends crucially on the wider Commons configuration.</p>
<p>This of course is the single proposal which, if the party is successful in May, will have potentially far-reaching consequences for the UK and the British economy. Quite how a referendum would be managed, and how an incoming Conservative government would allay the concerns <a href="http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1341681/politicians-cant-agree-eu-vote-good-business/">recently expressed by some business leaders</a> about the economic impact of negative or uncertain relationships with EU partners, are not addressed in the manifesto. </p>
<p>David Cameron <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg">has said</a> that he would campaign for continued British membership in an in-out referendum, although this could pose problems for management of his party.
Key factors likely to encourage support of British membership of the EU in a 2017 referendum (as well as a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11040226/Independence-referendum-Heres-why-Scotland-will-vote-No-probably.html">preference for the status quo</a>) would be Britain’s economic performance, but it will also depend on the way the campaign is handled. </p>
<p>So far, Conservative depiction of the EU as interfering and all-powerful has made British citizens <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/24/uk-britain-europe-poll-idUKBREA2M0G020140324">more distrustful and less confident</a> about the likelihood of being able to achieve satisfactory reform.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40206/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Milner does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>The Conservatives set themselves up for an ongoing battle with the EU.Susan Milner, Reader in European Politics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402732015-04-16T15:36:09Z2015-04-16T15:36:09ZWelcome to the age of the multi-tasking manifesto<p>With the polls showing the Conservatives and Labour firmly stuck in <a href="http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/">neck-and-neck position</a>, they are playing on multiple chessboards in a desperate scramble for votes.</p>
<p>Their latest move has been to publish multitasking manifestos. These seek to attract floating voters, shore up core votes and woo potential coalition partners, all at the same time.</p>
<h2>Trading places</h2>
<p>Both Labour and the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">Conservatives</a> have dressed up as their opposites in their manifestos. For Labour that meant putting the deficit front and centre in a bid to show that the party can be trusted with the public finances.</p>
<p>Labour has declared a commitment to balancing the books since at least 2012, but for one reason or another, its message has not filtered through. To hammer it home, the manifesto includes a <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf">budget responsibility lock</a> to ensure that all pledges can be paid for.</p>
<p>The Conservatives ventured into the greener pastures of the Good Life agenda. As he tried to break away from Lynton Crosby’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-revolt-against-lynton-crosbys-aggressive-uninspiring-strategy-10094564.html">negative and defensive electoral strategy</a> David Cameron put forward sunny and meritocratic language.</p>
<p>He talked about a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970">buccaneering Britain</a>, where working parents will be given 30 hours of free childcare, where workers on the minimum wage will not pay personal income tax and where the NHS will be miraculously saved by new investment.</p>
<p>Judging by media and political reaction, the two parties’ attempt at political cross-dressing was not entirely successful. The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who is trying to position himself as the reasonable and credible choice, dismissed the ploy as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/lib-dems-only-alternative-coalition-snp-or-ukip-nick-clegg">“laughable and implausible”</a>.</p>
<h2>Fodder for the faithful</h2>
<p>If this first ploy fails, these manifestos offer a back up plan – both contain pledges designed to appeal to the party faithful. The Conservatives resurrected the Thatcherite golden classics of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-housing-plan-is-a-blast-from-the-past-amid-a-21st-century-crisis-40178">right-to-buy housing policy</a> and tax cuts for the middle classes. It remains a mystery how these promises will be funded but the party is trusted on the economy, so perhaps they can get away with it.</p>
<p>For Labour, the <a href="http://labourlist.org/2015/04/britain-can-be-better-the-full-text-of-milibands-manifesto-launch-speech/">lock of responsibility</a> liberated Miliband to pursue his campaign to address social inequality with a series of commitments on the minimum wage, zero-hours contracts, freezes on energy prices, a cap on train fares and extra investments on the NHS. This core vote strategy at least has the advantage of showcasing Miliband’s strengths and comfort zone.</p>
<h2>Pitching to partners</h2>
<p>But what is most striking about the 2015 manifestos is the face that they are noticeably aimed at attracting potential coalition partners.</p>
<p>The Conservatives’ Good Life manifesto makes overtures to a couple of Liberal Democrat’s pet areas – namely the promises to offer 30 hours of free childcare, to raise the personal tax allowance to £12,500 and to make extra investments in the NHS. Curiously, these two latter promises match to the penny the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf?1429028133">Liberal Democrats’</a> manifesto commitments. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dave’s doubles up as a fan in the summer months.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jonathan Brady/PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour seems also to have invited the Liberal Democrats to the ball by showing fiscal responsibility with the ‘triple lock of responsibility’. There is considerable overlap between the two parties when it comes to education, infrastructure investment, defence and Europe, but the Liberal Democrats have attacked Labour’s “irresponsible” approach to the deficit.</p>
<p>And since it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will supply Labour with sufficient seats to command a majority in the House of Commons, Labour’s manifesto also opens the door to a potential dialogue with the SNP.</p>
<p>The promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of next Parliament will not mollify the SNP, but a softer stance on Trident might and Labour’s manifesto leaves the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-leaves-the-door-open-to-downscale-trident-40110">door open for just that</a>. Incidentally, this position on the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent may also please the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>With this three-pronged electoral strategy, Labour and the Conservatives are trying to cover the different fronts of the electoral battle. It is a high-risk strategy as the parties are testing a new plan on an unknown battleground. But given the high stakes of this election they would be foolish not to at least try it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
With the polls showing the Conservatives and Labour firmly stuck in neck-and-neck position, they are playing on multiple chessboards in a desperate scramble for votes. Their latest move has been to publish…Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Politics, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402002015-04-15T13:38:25Z2015-04-15T13:38:25ZManifesto Check: Tories promise more of the same on energy and the environment<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics from across the UK subject each party’s manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny.</em></p>
<p>Perhaps the most significant promise in the energy and environment sections of the <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">Conservative manifesto</a> is not news at all: the pledge to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050">continue to support the UK Climate Change Act</a>, the bipartisan legislation passed in 2008 that forms the legal basis for the UK’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The significance of the promise is that the Conservatives would continue to strengthen climate policies despite the ideological wariness within the party about state action.</p>
<p>What this means is that the promise to end public subsidies for new onshore wind farms, and to give locals a veto on new windfarms, may ultimately be of little consequence. Adherence to carbon budgets would oblige the government to find alternative means of securing emissions reductions. These may be more expensive, for instance if the shortfall in renewable energy was made up by additional energy from <a href="https://theconversation.com/offshore-wind-is-too-expensive-and-thats-unlikely-to-change-20987">offshore windfarms</a> for which public subsidies via feed-in tariffs are higher.</p>
<p>Other energy pledges mostly consist of fairly general promises to continue the status quo: support for nuclear and gas (but not coal), backing for “good-value” green energy, encouragement of new energy investment, steps to reform the energy market, delivery of smart meters to everyone by 2020, and support for low-cost energy efficiency with the aim (but not a commitment) of insulating a million more homes by 2020.</p>
<p>The only real exception is the promise to encourage support for fracking in the North of England by setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund not dissimilar to that <a href="http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/history-of-shetland-charitable-trust">established for Shetland</a>. While fracking would not increase UK emissions <a href="http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2013/pbrief_buchan_shale_10july13-7645.pdf">if shale gas only replaces imported gas</a>, however, it would increase the net global gas available for use and therefore runs counter to the goal of reducing global emissions. </p>
<p>In other areas of environmental protection the most significant promise is to build 1,400 new flood defence schemes to protect 300,000 homes. The increasing demand for flood protection is perhaps the clearest UK evidence of the accumulating impacts of climate change. However, experts believe <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/2014/12/01/six-flood-defence-questions-the-autumn-statement-should-answer/">much more is needed</a>.</p>
<p>Other policies are somewhat illusory. Using £3 billion from the EU Common Agricultural Policy to enhance the countryside should make a difference, but this money is earmarked for this purpose anyway. </p>
<p>Spending £300 million on minimising the environmental impact of new roads would be unnecessary if these roads, which by facilitating travel by car contribute to increasing COsub>2 emissions, were not built. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13001656">Extending Marine Protected Areas</a> would help to restore parts of damaged ecosystems around the coasts of the UK and its Overseas Territories, but only to a limited extent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40200/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Conservatives will have to meet their climate targets somehow, whether by fracking or offshore wind.Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityIan Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of PlymouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402552015-04-15T11:51:24Z2015-04-15T11:51:24ZManifesto Check: Conservatives convince on cutting the deficit but the price may be growth<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>William Tayler, Development Lecturer at Lancaster University</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">Conservative manifesto</a> commits the party to an additional round of austerity. This will be accomplished with a further £30 billion of spending cuts with the aim of generating a balanced budget by 2017-2018 and a surplus in 2018-2019.</p>
<p>The party’s view is that a balanced budget should be reached quickly with an emphasis on cuts to public spending. As a result they are proposing the most rapid deficit reduction programme of the three main parties. While their approach appears to provide a simple “quick fix” that will restore public finances, the least painful way of reducing budget deficits and public debt <a href="https://theconversation.com/missed-targets-missed-opportunities-and-a-serious-productivity-problem-35009">is slowly</a>, using policies which promote (or at least limit the fall in) economic growth. </p>
<p>Growth, in turn, reduces the deficit by increasing tax revenues and reducing welfare spending, while lowering the current stock of debt as a proportion of GDP. Faster deficit reduction, through rapid austerity measures, <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n04/simon-wren-lewis/the-austerity-con">has the opposite effect</a> since it reduces the income of consumers, who then spend less. This then further reduces economic growth and limits its effectiveness as a deficit and debt reducing strategy. Given the low cost of government borrowing and the current limitations of monetary policy to stimulate aggregate demand, <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/optimalg.pdf">an easing of the pace of austerity may be preferable</a>.</p>
<h2>Behind the rose-tint</h2>
<p>The party boasts to have successfully halved the inherited budget deficit and restored confidence in the UK economy. They point to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-the-coalition-added-1-000-jobs-every-day-in-office-38121">1,000 jobs a day</a> being created and forecasts of seeing a fall in debt to GDP this year. While employment levels have shown significant improvement, other measures of economic performance paint a less rosy picture of the state of the UK economy than the party’s opening comments in their manifesto. </p>
<p>For example, the considerably persistent <a>fall in real wages during the last parliament</a> and productivity per hour worked remaining at <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q201.pdf">around 16% lower than pre-crisis levels</a>. Admittedly, a large proportion of these falls are a hangover from the financial crisis and the prolonged recession in the eurozone. But the Office of Budget Responsibility estimate that austerity <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea020.pdf">reduced GDP by 2% between 2011 and 2013</a>. </p>
<p>With wages and productivity low, the manifesto’s claims to support policies “that grow the economy as a whole, generating new jobs and higher wages for everybody” are welcome. Elsewhere, they propose an agenda to build a “northern powerhouse”, alongside improvements in both transport and communication infrastructure. If implemented these policies will have positive multiplier effects and generate improvements in private sector productivity and growth to the <a href="http://ig.ft.com/austerity-audit/">poorest areas of the country</a> which have suffered the most from austerity. </p>
<p>But the magnitude of this investment is severely limited by the planned austerity measures, which according to the 2014 autumn statement <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea020.pdf">would leave spending at just 1.2% of GDP by 2017-2018</a>. Unlike the other main parties, this would not allow room for the government to borrow for additional public investment. This leaves us questioning the Conservatives’ ability to grow the economy with their commitment to austerity and balancing the budget.</p>
<p>Finally, the Conservatives are committed to an EU in-out referendum. Naturally this increases the possibility of an EU exit for the UK. Risking the trade links and positive impact of EU migration poses a <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration">threat to economic growth</a>, which would either increase the required level of austerity or hamper their ability to reduce the deficit. </p>
<h2>Banking and finance</h2>
<p><strong>Rosa Lastra, Professor of International Financial and Monetary Law at Queen Mary University of London</strong></p>
<p><strong>Rosa Lastra, Professor of International Financial and Monetary Law at Queen Mary University of London</strong></p>
<p>The Conservative Party manifesto promises to ensure that banks help secure our recovery, and back business to create jobs and growth. While this is, of course, a welcome commitment, the truth is that banks face external and internal pressures, with <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2014/wp486.pdf">higher capital requirements </a>and other rules in the aftermath of the financial crisis, as well as the challenges of the so-called <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shadow-banking-system.asp">shadow banks</a>. </p>
<p>Like Labour, the Conservative Party promises to support the growth of credit unions, and to help new challenger banks to enter the market. Competition is certainly needed in the banking sector to improve the access to credit for households and SMEs. And the legal structure of credit unions may facilitate serving the needs of communities tied together by shared local, regional or professional interests.</p>
<p>The Conservative party pledges to continue to provide access to credit via the <a href="http://british-business-bank.co.uk/">British Business Bank</a>, and to back the financial technology revolution. Under the Help to Grow initiative, 500 firms each year will receive financial support through the new British Business Bank, both through the form of loans and match funding with private investment.</p>
<p>The “technology revolution” – as the example of Silicon Valley in the US <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-malone-why-silicon-valley-will-continue-to-rule-the-tech-economy-1408747795">proves</a> – can be a source of innovation and growth. The American experience also shows that venture capital is needed to support investment into start-ups. So the Help to Grow initiative should be accompanied by other private sources of capital.</p>
<p>The manifesto points out how the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25083701">government capped payday lenders</a>. Again, the growth of the latter was in direct response of the need to access credits by clients that found it difficult because of their credit history to access the regular banking loans. The development of peer-to-peer lending platforms in response to the credit needs of individuals and SMEs is another example of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/05/credit-crunch-august-2007-recession">credit squeeze</a> felt by many. </p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto also promises to continue the Funding for Lending scheme into 2016 to boost bank lending to households and companies. Clearly the party is concerned about the need to facilitate the access to credit (coming from banks and other sources) for individuals and SMEs.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40255/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Tayler does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosa Lastra does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
</span></em></p>With the most rapid deficit reduction programme, the Conservatives will struggle to achieve economic growthWilliam Tayler, Development Lecturer, Lancaster UniversityRosa Lastra, Professor of International Financial and Monetary Law, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401872015-04-15T10:23:13Z2015-04-15T10:23:13ZManifesto Check: Conservatives fudge the numbers on apprenticeships<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics from across the UK subject each party’s manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny.</em></p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto skates over some uncomfortable truths about the development of apprenticeship during their last five years in office. True, as stated in the manifesto, 2.2 million new apprenticeships (apprenticeship starts) were registered between 2009/10 and 2013/14. However, of those starting an apprenticeship in this period, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-of-highest-qualification-held">850,000 were adults aged 25 or over</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, the Coalition government presided over and encouraged a huge increase in adult apprenticeships while <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-of-highest-qualification-held">numbers of 16-18 year olds in apprenticeship barely changed year on year</a>. Most of those on adult apprenticeships were already in employment and a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/83/8302.htm">House of Commons Select Committee</a> found that many adult apprenticeships offered poor value for money. It is, therefore, depressing to see a bland promise of apprenticeship numbers trumpeted in the manifesto – 3 million over the next five years – with no preference for young people and no commitment to higher quality. </p>
<p>The manifesto gives the impression that governments can conjure apprenticeships out of thin air. We know this is not the case. But the only manifesto proposal for encouraging employers to make the offer of an apprenticeship is a cut in employers’ National Insurance contributions for apprentices. </p>
<p>Employers can already access a government subsidy for taking on young apprentices but demand from young people for apprentice places continues to outstrip supply. It is unlikely that this marginal additional inducement will make much difference to numbers offering places to young people. It may well encourage more employers to offer apprenticeships to their employees. Giving employers “more control over apprenticeship courses” could help to raise standards and add more value but these new trailblazer apprenticeships demand more of employers than the current offer and could <a href="http://demos.co.uk/files/476_1504_CoA_WEB_2_.pdf?1425489134">make it more difficult for small employers to participate</a>.</p>
<p>Two proposals specifically target developing the skills of young people. The manifesto proposes to “continue to replace lower level, classroom-based Further Education courses” with apprenticeships. This was put forward in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-vocational-education-the-wolf-report">Wolf Review of Vocational Education published in 2011</a>. As the report showed, low-level vocational courses are of little value on the labour market. </p>
<p>The remedy, however, is not to replace them with low-level apprenticeships but to prepare young people better in full-time Further Education to access high quality apprenticeships when they are ready – a policy <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=775">successfully followed in Germany</a>. A second proposal, under which unemployed young people will have to “take an apprenticeship, traineeship or do daily community work for their benefits” casually ignores the fact that apprenticeships are paid employment and not a punishment. What better way of lowering status and quality?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hilary Steedman has received funding from government departments, leading charities and international organisations</span></em></p>Conservatives throw quality and status out of the door in bid to increase apprenticeships.Hilary Steedman, Senior Research Associate, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402112015-04-15T09:45:28Z2015-04-15T09:45:28ZTories offer the dream of home ownership – but do Britons want it any more?<p>The Conservative Party has <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">pledged</a> to extend the Right-to-Buy scheme to housing association tenants in England, offering discounts worth tens of thousands of pounds depending on length of tenancy and where you live.</p>
<p>Could this new announcement, which David Cameron <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1464642/pm-promises-good-life-for-working-people">claims</a> proves that the Conservatives “are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life”, be an appealing prospect for England’s most disadvantaged young people? After all, they may well be the least likely to ever get a foothold in the property market.</p>
<p>The latest <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/the-reality-of-generation-rent/">Generation Rent</a> report found that 39% of 20-45 year-olds either don’t know or haven’t decided whether the current Help to Buy and New Buy schemes have had a positive impact on the first time buyer market.</p>
<p>Despite increased assistance for first-time buyers over the past few years, our research found that the proportion of young people who don’t want to own a home increased over the last five years. At the same time the proportion of those who are likely to become first-time buyers has fallen over the same period. </p>
<p>The proportion of young people who are saving to buy a property has fallen by six percentage points since 2011. This drop could be because young people no longer see the point in saving for a deposit; our findings show that high property prices, the size of the deposit required and low income were the three most significant barriers to buying a property for young people.</p>
<h2>Giving up on buying</h2>
<p>The combination of high property prices and years without real-terms wage growth means that young people are unable to save the amount required for a deposit or to get a big enough mortgage to buy a property. The time it takes to save for a deposit has jumped, from an average of 3.6 years in 2011 to 5.35 years in 2014. The Generation Rent report found that 65% of young people reported being put off applying for a mortgage due to fear of being turned down (an increase of 10 percentage points from 2011). Nearly 80% believed banks do not want to lend to first-time buyers, and 21% believed it is virtually impossible for first-time buyers to obtain a mortgage.</p>
<p>With this in mind, could extending the Right-to-Buy scheme to housing association tenants in England help improve the situation for aspiring young homeowners who currently find themselves in social housing?</p>
<p>Enabling people who live in council or other social housing to purchase their homes at a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/discounts">discounted rate</a> would certainly help to eliminate two of the three biggest barriers that young people face – namely high property prices and the size of the deposit required – and could help this disenfranchised group become homeowners.</p>
<h2>Forgotten renters</h2>
<p>Cameron’s announcement may help to reinvigorate enthusiasm for home-ownership among a section of young people but what about those who are not in social housing and those waiting for years to get a council house? An already depleted pool of social housing has played a part in forcing young people into the private rental sector, with 49% of those aged 16-34 in this category, overtaking the number of owner occupiers in that age group in 2011-12. </p>
<p>Between 2003-04 and 2013-14, the proportion of younger households in the private rented sector more than doubled. This new announcement will not help those who are privately renting and unable to buy a home, and may serve to alienate them and create resentment towards those in social housing.</p>
<p>The government’s existing Help-to-Buy initiative has clearly not helped change young people’s perceptions and experiences of the housing market. Despite this, the extended policy will undoubtedly be an attractive proposal to some social housing tenants, and may provoke a last minute change of heart from some traditional Labour supporters to vote Conservative. Whether this scheme will change young people’s attitudes to home-ownership remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40211/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nevena Ilic works for NatCen Social Research.</span></em></p>Cameron’s pledge may help some in social housing, but it offers no hope for everyone else who’s locked out of the market.Nevena Ilic, Researcher, National Centre for Social ResearchLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402082015-04-14T20:22:12Z2015-04-14T20:22:12ZManifesto Check: the Conservatives’ top policies<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a>, where academics subject each party’s election manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny. Here is what our experts had to say about the Conservatives’ top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.</em></p>
<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>William Tayler, Development Lecturer at Lancaster University</strong></p>
<p>The party boasts to have successfully halved the inherited budget deficit and restored confidence in the UK economy. They point to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-the-coalition-added-1-000-jobs-every-day-in-office-38121">1,000 jobs a day</a> being created and forecasts of seeing a fall in debt to GDP this year. While employment levels have shown significant improvement, other measures of economic performance paint a less rosy picture of the state of the UK economy than the party’s opening comments in their manifesto. </p>
<p>For example, the considerably persistent <a>fall in real wages during the last parliament</a> and productivity per hour worked remaining at <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q201.pdf">around 16% lower than pre-crisis levels</a>. Admittedly, a large proportion of these falls are a hangover from the financial crisis and the prolonged recession in the eurozone. But the Office of Budget Responsibility estimate that austerity <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea020.pdf">reduced GDP by 2% between 2011 and 2013</a>. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-convince-on-cutting-the-deficit-but-the-price-may-be-growth-40255">here</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Iain Clacher, Associate Professor in Accounting and Finance at University of Leeds</strong></p>
<p>With <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">this manifesto</a>, the Conservatives could have set out a clear, honest, economic roadmap. It is disappointing that they haven’t done so. This is probably because many voters would not like the answers, but it leaves the party’s key economic polices looking random, and lacking a coherent strategy.</p>
<p>Ultimately, any government has budget constraints. Therefore, what is spent in one area of government, results in budgetary cuts in another, or in higher taxes. The Conservatives say that they will be able to raise money via a clampdown on tax avoidance and efficiency gains across departments. Sadly, both of these holy grails of government are almost impossible to achieve, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/20/ifs-budget-2014-promises-uncertain-savings-forecasts">never generate</a> the the revenues governments think they will. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-tory-tax-policies-are-out-of-focus-40672">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Hilary Steedman, Senior Research Associate at London School of Economics and Political Science</strong></p>
<p>The Conservatives’ manifesto skates over some uncomfortable truths about the development of apprenticeship during their last five years in office. True, as stated in the manifesto, 2.2 million new apprenticeships (apprenticeship starts) were registered between 2009/10 and 2013/14. However, of those starting an apprenticeship in this period, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-of-highest-qualification-held">850,000 were adults aged 25 or over</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, the coalition government presided over and encouraged a huge increase in adult apprenticeships while <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-of-highest-qualification-held">numbers of 16-18 year olds in apprenticeship barely changed year on year</a>. Most of those on adult apprenticeships were already in employment and a <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/83/8302.htm">House of Commons Select Committee</a>found that many adult apprenticeships offered poor value for money. It is, therefore, depressing to see a bland promise of apprenticeship numbers trumpeted in the manifesto -– 3 million over the next five years –- with no preference for young people and no commitment to higher quality.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-fudge-the-numbers-on-apprenticeships-40187">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Sandra McNally, Research Associate at London School of Economics and Political Science</strong></p>
<p>On the curriculum, the Conservatives emphasise learning of the basic skills of literacy and numeracy in primary schools, and in secondary schools (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/10/ofsted-chief-growing-failure-england-secondary-schools">where this fails</a>). They are right to prioritise these areas. Inadequate literacy and numeracy is a problem for about a fifth of the adult population, and those aged 16-24 perform worse than those aged 55-65 (<a href="http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/">unlike in most other countries</a>). Partly as a result, establishing basic literacy and numeracy leads to a high earnings return in later life.</p>
<p>Whether or not changing the curriculum will actually improve in these basic skills is another matter. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-hold-the-course-with-schools-plan-40192">here</a>. </p>
<h2>EU relations</h2>
<p><strong>Susan Milner, Reader in European Politics at University of Bath</strong></p>
<p>When it comes to Europe, gone are the euphemistic references to “balance of competences” and “renegotiating” European policy. Instead, the Conservative manifesto has returned to the two R’s of the pre-coalition era: referendum, and return of powers. The manifesto reflects the careful line trodden since 2010 by the Conservative leadership, between concessions to the eurosceptic wing of the party, and recognition of the concerns of different sections of business.</p>
<p>The Conservatives want control over two home office policy areas returned to a national level: immigration and human rights. The Tories criticise the Labour Party’s earlier agreement to lift controls on free movement. Yet the manifesto does not explain how controls on immigration can now be secured, which would be <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/04/01/reforming-laws-on-eu-free-movement-will-be-a-headache-for-any-future-british-government/">a difficult process</a> for any future government. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-the-conservatives-take-a-combative-approach-to-the-eu-40206">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Street, Professor at the Centre for Health Economics, University of York</strong></p>
<p>The party claims to have “cleared out bureaucracy” and, indeed, there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-there-more-nhs-doctors-and-nurses-than-before-the-coalition-39607">20,000 fewer managers and support staff</a> now than in May 2010. NHS productivity has improved year-on-year, mainly due to <a href="http://www.hsj.co.uk/5084013.article#.VS0yvvnF9c9">slower recruitment of staff</a>. And the manifesto correctly claims that The Commonwealth Fund has ranked the UK as having <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/%7E/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf">the best health system</a> among 11 countries. </p>
<p>But other statements don’t stand up to scrutiny. The <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/rtt-waiting-times/">official statistics</a> contradict claims that fewer patients are waiting longer than target times. In <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/rtt-waiting-times/rtt-data-2014-15/">February 2015</a>, 18,804 more patients were waiting longer than 18 weeks – and 6,019 more than 26 weeks – for hospital admission, compared with May 2010. And although 194 fewer patients were waiting more than 52 weeks, many more patients were also waiting longer for outpatient care. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="http://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-tories-have-it-wrong-on-cancer-admissions-and-patient-satisfaction-40189">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Catherine Harris, Research Fellow at University of Sheffield</strong></p>
<p>The Conservatives commitment to controlling immigration has recently been questioned after they <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">failed to meet their net migration target</a>. Now, the party’s election <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">manifesto</a> outlines its immigration policies for the next parliament, and how they would be implemented.</p>
<p>The Conservatives are proposing to keep their “ambition” of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, and to control migration from the European Union by reforming welfare rules. They also claim they will clamp down on illegal immigration and enhance UK border security.</p>
<p>Although the Conservatives talk tough about immigration, with mentions of strengthening borders and improving enforcement, they actually offer few new policies. And those that are new would be ineffective.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-talk-tough-but-bring-nothing-new-on-immigration-40336">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40208/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Harris does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hilary Steedman has received funding from government departments, leading charities and international organisations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain Clacher does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sandra McNally receives funding from the ESRC and BIS to do independent research, but this article does not reflect the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Milner does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Tayler does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Our experts analyse the evidence on the Conservatives’ big ticket policies.Andrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkCatherine Harris, Research Fellow in EU migration and ethnic entrepreneurship, University of SheffieldHilary Steedman, Senior Research Associate, London School of Economics and Political ScienceIain Clacher, Associate Professor in Accounting and Finance, University of LeedsSandra McNally, Professor in the School of Economics, University of SurreySusan Milner, Reader in European Politics, University of BathWilliam Tayler, Development Lecturer, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.