tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ukip-manifesto-16171/articlesUKIP manifesto – The Conversation2015-05-01T09:30:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403332015-05-01T09:30:52Z2015-05-01T09:30:52ZManifesto Check: pro-GM but anti-EU, UKIP could cost UK farming<p>UKIP’s proposals on food and agriculture are, unsurprisingly, framed as requiring exit from the EU and its <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm">Common Agricultural Policy</a> (CAP). The CAP covers payments to farmers, and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/index_en.htm">Rural Development</a> – locally implemented activities promoting farm efficiency, environmental protection and wider rural economic development. Yet much of what is proposed does not require an EU exit to be implemented. In fact, some elements are already in operation.</p>
<p>To help consumers make food choices, UKIP would replace current food labelling rules, in particular requiring additional information on animal welfare. UKIP states that EU exit is required to “regain control” on the matter of animal health and welfare. This is misleading, because most of the measures it lists to improve animal welfare can be delivered from <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/index_en.htm">inside the EU</a>.</p>
<p>UKIP supports scientific research into genetic modification (GM), and a free vote in parliament on its adoption. The <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/index_en.htm">EU is the main region</a> globally opposing GM. So, if a post-exit EU-UK trade agreement included agriculture (which is not a given), and parliament voted to adopt GM, this could have a significant impact on agricultural exports to EU countries. </p>
<h2>Saving or spending?</h2>
<p>UKIP’s manifesto supports smaller farms, in several ways. They would strengthen the role of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/groceries-code-adjudicator">Grocery Adjudicator</a>, who oversees relationships between farmers and supermarkets. Although it is unfortunate that UKIP also refers to the Competition Commission: this body closed last year. </p>
<p>UKIP’s support for hill farmers continues current EU rural development policy, as does its support for agri-environmental farming via the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/environmental-stewardship">Entry Level Stewardship</a> Scheme. Removal of payments for land near wind turbines is consistent with their broader <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukip-policies-would-make-climate-change-worse-40263">climate change scepticism</a>.</p>
<p>UKIP wants to redistribute direct payments from large farms towards small farms. This will target payments towards farmers more in need of support, although <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2008.00094.x/abstract">history shows how difficult</a> this would be to deliver. UKIP will also abolish some of the <a href="http://capreform.eu/tag/greening/">unpopular conditions</a> currently placed on EU direct payments, such as cropping and rotation restrictions.</p>
<p>The big question is cost. The opening paragraph implies that it can be afforded, but there is no direct costing of the payment proposals. UKIP states that EU exit would deliver a £9 billion saving: the amount we pay into the EU budget each year. But this ignores the money we receive from the CAP. In the context of the manifesto as a whole, it is simply not clear how this money would be re-spent, on agriculture or elsewhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Ackrill 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>It’s easy to poke holes in UKIP’s plans for agriculture.Robert Ackrill, Professor of European Economics and Policy, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405022015-05-01T09:16:49Z2015-05-01T09:16:49ZWhy a ‘Brexit’ won’t be as easy as UKIP makes out<p>The UK Independence Party’s policy on the European Union covers trade, defence, foreign affairs, and what they call “Brexit” – a British exit from the EU. The success of the first three depend on the latter: if there is no Brexit, UKIP’s policies are more or less redundant. Unfortunately for UKIP, coordinating a Brexit would be no easy matter. </p>
<p>On trade, UKIP simply assumes that the UK will be able to negotiate a free trade agreement, make its own trade deals on its own terms, and retake its seat in the World Trade Organisation. Some of this may be possible. But it could take a long time, and be contingent on securing the agreement of all the other EU states – some of which may not be amenable. </p>
<p>We know from past experience that trade negotiations between EU states can take a long time. For example, it took years to negotiate the entry of Spain and Portugal to the European Economic Community. In 1974, Portugal’s dictatorship ended – the same happened in Spain’s in 1975. Both applied to join the EEC shortly after, but neither were acceded until 1986. This was not because the EEC was hostile, but because it had other issues in play, as well as niggles over special interests such as wine. </p>
<p>There is another issue: Britain does not have a strong track record of cooperation with the EU. For example, the Common Assembly – a forerunner to the European Parliament – was initially formed to circumvent British objections to the the Monnet/Schuman suggestion for a European Coal and Steel Community. Britain has also tried to “re-negotiate” its terms on several occasions; either formally as in 1974 to 1975, or as part of <a href="http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm">treaty negotiations</a> for the Single European Act, the Treaty on European Union and more recently the Lisbon Treaty. On top of this, Margaret Thatcher was trying to win back “our money” in the protracted negotiations over <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4721307.stm">the EU rebate</a> in the 1980’s. </p>
<h2>Defence dependence</h2>
<p>It’s a similar case with defence. The British armed forces are not what they were: the number of people in the armed forces <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/402633/quarterly_personnel_report_jan15.pdf">is down</a> from 221,330 in 2012 to 194,570 in 2015. Even France had to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/27/us-military-tankers-french-mali">borrow planes and helicopters</a> from the United States of America to carry out specifically French tasks, in areas of the world that were <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/09/mali-forgotten-war-20149691511333443.html">always of special interest</a> to France. No medium-sized state can act independently outside its immediate sphere of influence.</p>
<p>Given the population size of the UK, it has to be accepted that our defence interest, our procurement of equipment, and increasing specialisation of the armed forces means that we need to be in league with our neighbours. This is also true because there is increasing doubt about the enduring nature of the US commitment to Europe, given its increasing emphasis on other areas of the world. </p>
<p>The US is already worried about what role the UK can play. But perhaps most important is the increasing cost of military equipment and the fact that there is a blurring of the lines between research and development in civilian and military areas. And if the EU focuses more and more peacekeeping, we would presumably want to be involved in our own neighbourhoods.</p>
<p>In both trade and defence there is really no such thing as independence. A state can be independent by name, but not by nature. World trade is interdependent. Decisions about jobs in Scotland are increasingly made in the China, or India or the United States. A small to medium state like the UK (population <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.html">64.1 million</a>) will find it increasingly difficult to carry out significant negotiations with larger states like the United States (population <a href="http://www.census.gov/">320 million</a>), India and China (population of <a href="http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm">more than one billion each</a>) on its own, since these states will much prefer to deal with the European Union (population of <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_and_population_change_statistics">over 500 million</a>).</p>
<p>There is, of course, another argument: YouGov polling from February this year showed a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/24/eu-referendum-record-lead/">record lead for the In vote</a>. So a “Brexit” is not necessarily the vote winner that UKIP claims.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40502/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Trevor Salmon 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>UKIP’s whole manifesto rests on the premise that the UK will leave the EU.Trevor Salmon, Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403312015-04-24T13:15:36Z2015-04-24T13:15:36ZManifesto Check: UKIP pledge more police resources, despite falling crime levels<p>For the first time in many years, criminal justice is not a key election issue. One consequence of this is that the parties’ manifestos lack coherence in dealing with the topic. They seem to take a “lucky dip” approach – almost random ideas – rather than sets of thought through and well-integrated policies. The <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">UKIP manifesto</a> is another example of this.</p>
<h2>Populist policy</h2>
<p>The UKIP manifesto asserts that police manpower reductions have “gone too far”. But our most reliable source <a href="http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk/">Crime Survey</a> tells us crime has fallen, and that trend shows every sign of continuing. So what does “too far” mean? It’s also unclear that police officers are at present being subjected to “undue stress” because they are overstretched. This is reflexive thinking and populist sloganising rather than a serious – never mind radical – attempt to match resources to policing needs.</p>
<p>Other UKIP proposals are a mixed bag. Almost since their inception there has been dissatisfaction with the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/police-and-crime-commissioners">Police and Crime Commissioners</a>, elected on a turnout of less than 20%, which <a href="https://fullfact.org/articles/police_crime_commissioners_PCC_election_turnout-28608">is staggeringly low</a>, even by our usual level of local government voting lethargy. The UKIP proposal for a review of the running of these bodies is likely to be welcomed.</p>
<p>More challenging is the proposal to reduce the number of police forces from the present 43. There would probably be efficiency gains, though this is speculative. It is hard to accept the UKIP assertion that this would not be a “top down” process, and its assurance that the process would be “police led” may raise more than a few sceptical eyebrows among a public whose <a href="http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/4/744.abstract">confidence in the police service has waned</a>.</p>
<h2>Changing the law</h2>
<p>Amid several proposals on the scope and greater firmness in criminal law and sentencing there is one call for decriminalisation – non-payment of the TV licence would become a civil matter rather than a criminal offence. This has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26727068">mooted more widely</a> over the last few years and there is some support for it, not least <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23792388">in the courts</a> where a reduction in the workload would be welcomed. The proposal may in some form also reflect <a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-bbc-picking-ukip/20663">UKIP antipathy to the BBC</a>, which apparently wishes the law to be kept as it is.</p>
<p>Existing laws are absolutely clear about offences such as female genital mutilation, “honour killings” and forced marriages. UKIP is proposing enforcement of the law, and prosecution “where necessary”. But it’s difficult to think of a situation when it would not be proper and necessary to prosecute these offences. The manifesto could be talking about the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31454073">cultural timidity</a> of police, social workers and the crown prosecution. If this is what it means, it should say so.</p>
<p>On what might be called social vices – drugs and gambling – the manifesto emphasises the adverse social consequences of both, and promises a shift in focus from user to seller by limiting the stakes on now notorious fixed-odds betting machines, and targeting drug sellers rather than users. Both proposals are hard to dissent from, and seem relatively easy to initiate. But carrying them through may be more difficult.</p>
<p>The manifesto rightly draws attention to previous governments’ poor record in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/20/system-foreign-criminals-parliament-watchdog-home-office">deporting foreign criminals</a>. This is a failure in interagency working, political will and priority-setting, and needs urgent attention.</p>
<p>The manner in which human rights’ law has been used and interpreted has, as the manifesto observes, also caused concern: conferring voting rights on prisoners has, for example, been seen by many politicians as meddling and produced heated Commons’ debates. Leaving the European Court of Human Rights and repealing the Human Rights Act are radical proposals. This would undoubtedly change the legal landscape and are specific expressions of UKIP’s core proposal, indeed its priority aim: quitting the EU.</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/40331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seán McConville is a member of the Magistrates' Association</span></em></p>UKIP’s pledges on crime reflect their core values: populism, and leaving the EU.Seán McConville, Professor of Law and Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/407152015-04-24T05:09:17Z2015-04-24T05:09:17ZManifesto Check: UKIP risks it all on a Brexit<p>UKIP’s vision for Britain’s future rests on an exit from the European Union. This vision is laid out in a section in their manifesto unambiguously entitled <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf?1429295050">“Brexit”</a>. UKIP states that a withdrawal from the EU means the UK can take back control of business and employment legislation and immigration rules, and sets out how the party would go about withdrawing the UK’s membership.</p>
<h2>Another referendum</h2>
<p>Two crucial aspects of this strategy are unclear. First, although everything in UKIP’s manifesto is based on a withdrawal from the EU, the manifesto calls for a referendum on the question of membership. The reasons for this are not hard to fathom. Without locating withdrawal within the context of some kind of public consultation, the party’s critique of the EU as undemocratic and bureaucratic could be seen as hypocritical. </p>
<p>Indeed, the party’s support is often seen as resting on a wider public disaffection with established politics, and a call to more <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27973093">direct forms of democracy</a>. Tactically, UKIP cannot hope to take office, but must aim for a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-says-ukip-would-prop-up-tories-in-next-government-in-return-for-eu-referendum-9789762.html">“kingmaker” role</a> in a future coalition. By calling for a referendum, UKIP is forming a bridge to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-the-conservatives-take-a-combative-approach-to-the-eu-40206">Conservative manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>Yet a referendum on EU membership has never been the party’s main aim, nor has it been the key focus of its support. <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/12/the-ukip-threat-is-not-about-europe/">Lord Ashcroft’s 2012 poll</a> – which was the first major insight into UKIP support – showed that it rested on a more diffuse sense of unease and loss. But the most glaring inconsistency in the manifesto is the leap from referendum to withdrawal: UKIP takes an “out” vote for granted. Assuming that Britain would vote to leave the EU is a very risky strategy indeed.</p>
<p>Conservative eurosceptics had public opinion on their side in 2013, when they cornered their leader into agreeing to a timetable for referendum. But support for withdrawal has since dropped and continues to decrease despite (or perhaps because of) the greater visibility of the issue in public debate. The most recent <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/22/eu-referendum-lead-10/">YouGov poll on the subject</a> showed a majority of 45% in favour of the status quo, and only 35% favouring withdrawal. </p>
<p>This is not to say that a referendum in 2017 would result in a rejection of the UKIP position. A lot can happen in the meantime to sway voters’ minds, and continued eurozone and immigration crises are likely to form part of that picture. But the gap between the party’s position on referendum and its wider exit stance is striking.</p>
<h2>Risky assumptions</h2>
<p>As has already been <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rather-large-cost-ukip-forgot-to-mention-in-its-manifesto-40265">pointed out</a>, the figures laid out in the UKIP manifesto do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny because they rest entirely on the counter-factual narrative of exit. The UKIP position is that, on top of the return to the UK of its EU budget contribution, wealth and jobs would flow from the ability to control the British economy. </p>
<p>This would presumably <a href="http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/">depend on an offshoring strategy</a> aimed at exploiting a low-cost, low-tax economy attractive to inward investment (something between a Swiss and a Turkish model). Such a strategy has not been properly costed, and would have to take account of the complexity of investment decisions: cost and regulation matter to shareholders and shape location decisions, but so do other factors such as proximity to key markets and economic stability.</p>
<p>More generally, the impact of withdrawal on the British economy is unknown. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-keeps-it-vague-on-eu-reform-40105">has been observed</a> in the opposite position of support for membership, the cases for membership and for withdrawal both rest on counter-factual estimates of the consequences of British exit from the EU. EU supporters claim that up to three and a half a million British jobs depend on the European export market, based on a report by researchers at <a href="http://www.europarl.org.uk/resource/static/files/ukjobs.pdf">South Bank University</a> for the European parliament. </p>
<p>UKIP disputes this claim, arguing instead that a shift to emerging markets could compensate for the jobs lost through EU withdrawal. This argument appears to be based on a more recent report by the “free market” think tank, the <a href="http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation">Institute for Economic Affairs</a>, which acknowledges the high risks involved in such a shift. The UKIP manifesto works on similar assumptions, but does not specify an alternative strategy, and does not acknowledge the risk involved.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/12/the-ukip-threat-is-not-about-europe/">roots of UKIP popularity</a> are most obviously seen in a critique of mainstream politics, rather than a credible set of policies.</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/40715/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>UKIP’s clear belief that the UK public wants out of the EU isn’t based on facts.Susan Milner, Reader in European Politics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404182015-04-23T09:28:45Z2015-04-23T09:28:45ZManifesto Check: UKIP’s controversial take on education<p>In many respects, UKIP’s education <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">manifesto</a> pledges are unremarkable, and their broad approach is similar to that taken by a number of the other parties. For example, UKIP pledges the need for education that is responsive to each child’s needs, emphasises the importance of high quality, well supported teachers who have high status in society, and stresses the importance of primary education in particular. </p>
<p>The party is correct in saying that these are all important elements of a high quality education system. But their proposals on grammar schools and higher education are, by contrast, much more controversial.</p>
<h2>Hard-working British teachers</h2>
<p>There is good empirical evidence that high quality teachers and good teaching is a critically important influence on children’s achievement. One <a href="http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp212.pdf">recent study</a> for England found that being taught by a high quality teacher adds about a half a GCSE point per subject, compared to being taught by a low quality one. This is consistent with further evidence from a <a href="http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2teachers-impact-report-final.pdf">recent review</a> by the Sutton Trust.</p>
<p>There is little doubt that to achieve a high quality education system, we should be focusing as much on teachers as on other elements of the system, such as school structures. It is also true that in many countries with high quality education systems, teachers have particularly high status in society relative to other occupations. <a href="http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/">Finland</a> is one such example. But how we achieve that improvement of teacher status in society is left unsaid.</p>
<p>The big pledge in the UKIP manifesto is their aim to reduce class sizes to 25 pupils. Smaller class sizes <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w7656">can bring about improvements</a> in pupil achievement but largely in the primary years, and only with quite large reductions in class size. So this policy is unlikely to significantly improve pupil achievement. </p>
<p>But then, UKIP is not claiming that reducing class sizes will improve pupil achievement. Instead, the party argues that the reductions will ease teacher workloads and alleviate parental concerns. The costs of reducing class sizes by one sixth would – other things equal – increase the costs per pupil by a similar amount. This is money that might be used to do other things, so it’s critically important to know where this additional funding comes from, in order to understand the impact of this particular pledge.</p>
<p>UKIP also makes a specific pledge that may appeal to teachers, and that is to decrease the amount of paperwork that teachers have to deal with. They even mention specific examples of excess paper work, such as requirements for overly detailed individual lesson plans. Here again, the party is correct that workload does appear to be an issue. There is <a href="http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/20391/1/RR302_-_TALIS_report_NC.pdf">good evidence</a> that teachers’ working hours are longer in the UK than in some other countries. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/highlights-from-education-at-a-glance_2076264x">recent OECD report</a> found that on average, teachers in England work around 46 hours per week – nine hours more than the average for all the countries surveyed. Yet the survey also indicated that face-to-face teaching time in England is similar to that in other countries, at 20 hours per week. So it follows that teachers in England are busy doing things other than face to face teaching, including many of the tasks identified by the UKIP manifesto as “unnecessary paperwork”. Though the impact of such a policy on pupil achievement is unknown, it is likely to be beneficial to teacher well-being, which may in turn impact on teacher quality.</p>
<p>UKIP also pledges to abolish performance-related pay for teachers. On this issue, UKIP may be premature. The most recent reforms to link teacher performance to pay have not been in place long enough for a full evaluation. <a href="http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp113.pdf">Earlier evidence</a> on the impact of the previous English performance pay scheme for teachers suggested a positive impact on pupil achievement. However, the evidence from the US is not so definitive, and the precise nature of the performance-related pay scheme is important in determining whether it works or not, and certainly not all do. Hence evaluating the current arrangements is an essential first step.</p>
<h2>Grammar school controversy</h2>
<p>UKIP, along with many of the other political parties, is correct to stress the importance of primary education, and there is <a href="http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2559/1/2559.pdf">strong evidence</a> that the early years are critical for children’s development. Indeed we know that <a href="http://www.rlab.lse.ac.uk/opening/papers/feinstein.pdf">poor children fall behind their wealthier counterparts</a> as early as age three, so there is no doubt that the earliest years and primary education are very important. </p>
<p>It is less clear from research that UKIP’s proposals to abolish key stage one tests in primary school and appoint science coordinators will really improve children’s academic achievement, increase the uptake of science at secondary level and reduce the gender gap in science subjects. The latter pledges on science are too vague to determine whether they will have a positive effect, and the gender gap in science take up at secondary is linked to many issues that a science coordinator is unlikely to solve.</p>
<p>There is one obvious stand out policy from UKIP: the desire to “see a grammar school in every town”. Whether or not grammar schools are beneficial has been the subject of vitriolic debate since the 1960s, and there is now a substantial, though controversial, evidence base on which we can draw. Broadly, <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.187.3202&rep=rep1&type=pdf">research indicates</a> that having a grammar school system tends to benefit the high achievers, but to the detriment of lower achievers. </p>
<p>There is a long-standing belief that the grammar school system enabled poor but bright children to succeed, but the research findings suggest that this has not been the case on average, and that poor students have a very low chance of attending grammar schools. <a href="http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/47/3/684.short">International evidence</a> also indicates that the move to a comprehensive system seems to be broadly beneficial, particularly for students from lower socio-economic groups. UKIP does propose a reformed grammar system with adequate funding for secondary moderns and lots of opportunities to move into grammars at ages beyond 11. But overall, there is little evidence to support such a policy, and the upheaval to the system would be substantial.</p>
<h2>Unnecessary upheaval</h2>
<p>UKIP has a number of curriculum proposals, but without knowing more detail it is impossible to say whether policies like providing first aid training to students will be beneficial, or take time out of other subjects and reduce achievement. Nor is it possible to tell if proposals to reverse some recent reforms to GCSEs and AS levels will be positive. But one thing is clear: many feel that the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-goves-curriculum-reforms-will-result-in-total-chaos-teachers-claim-8691328.html">relentless pace of change</a> in terms of curriculum reform is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/apr/01/new-curriculum-teaching-concepts-younger">putting the education system at serious risk</a>, and all politicians would do well to let changes bed in.</p>
<p>On Ofsted, UKIP appears to acknowledge teachers’ criticisms of the system. Some of the party’s proposals may be welcomed, for example that complaints against Ofsted will get investigated independently, and that inspections will only be undertaken by well-qualified former teachers. UKIP also stresses the need for short and focused inspections, addressing the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom and avoiding tick box approaches. There is little detail in the manifesto about how this would be achieved in practice, but there is no doubt that many in the sector would <a href="http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/news-and-media/blogs/russell-hobby-general-secretary/ofsted-reform-part-one/">welcome reform</a>.</p>
<h2>Further and higher education</h2>
<p>UKIP also wishes to see the development of vocational schools and colleges, as well as apprenticeships taken at age 16. One problem with this is that <a href="http://217.35.77.12/research/england/education/RR834.pdf">the evidence</a> indicates that employers currently tend to value higher rather than lower level apprenticeships. If students are offered a low level apprenticeship route, there is a danger that students would end up entering the labour market without sufficiently high levels of literacy, numeracy and other essential skills. </p>
<p>One of the key challenges with the current apprenticeship system is persuading employers to take on apprentices in the first place. Since employers are currently reluctant to hire 16-19 year old school leavers, it is not clear how UKIP will persuade sufficient numbers of employers to participate in this endeavour, or indeed whether this policy is at all feasible.</p>
<p>On higher education, UKIP argues that tuition fees have been disastrous for young people’s prospects and that we have too many graduates leading to many having to take up low skilled jobs. Its solution is to cap the number of students going into higher education and try to increase the incentive for them to take economically valuable subjects in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine. They say nothing about what they would do about the level of fees. </p>
<p>While deeply unpopular, the income contingent nature of the students’ loans does in fact protect them, so that they only repay if they are earning above the threshold. Indeed, <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/TrendsInUndergraduateRecruitment.aspx#.VTd7diFViko">there is evidence</a> that tuition fees have not put off students from going to university, although the long term impact of having fees at £9,000 remains unknown. </p>
<p>On the other hand, UKIP is right in saying many graduates end up doing non graduate jobs, and that many STEM degrees appear to be <a href="http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/the_labour_market_value_of_stem">more highly valued by employers</a>. </p>
<p>So the party’s proposal to make STEM degrees free if the individual goes on to work in a STEM occupation is interesting. It would be extremely difficult to implement in practice. There would be massive temptation to game the system, with companies rebranding jobs as STEM regardless of their content, and universities providing low level sciences courses, which may not be of much economic value. But UKIP is almost certainly right in saying that such a radical policy would alter students’ subject choices. </p>
<p>It is likely that this policy would come at substantial net cost. And it remains to be seen whether UKIP’s proposal to abolish tuition fee loans for EEA students could raise enough revenue for the government to pay the STEM tuition fee bill. </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/40418/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Vignoles receives funding for her research from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Institute for Fiscal studies, the Nuffield Foundation, the Department for Education and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. But this article does not represent 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>Our expert takes stock of UKIP’s policies on early childhood, primary, secondary, further, and higher education. It’s a mixed bag.Anna Vignoles, Professor of Education, Jesus College, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404192015-04-17T15:11:04Z2015-04-17T15:11:04ZManifesto Check: UKIP’s 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 UKIP’s top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.</em></p>
<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>Jonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics at University of Sheffield</strong></p>
<p>The UK Independence Party claims in its <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429096952/theukipmanifesto2015.pdf?1429096952">manifesto</a> that it is the only party to have had its manifesto commitments independently checked for their affordability. There are a series of eye-catching spending promises, which their manifesto boldly claims are fully costed and that UKIP is the only party able to eliminate the budget deficit. But all of UKIP’s savings are subject to a number of uncertainties.</p>
<p>The proposals include an increase in expenditure on the NHS by £3 billion per year, with 8,000 more GPs, 20,000 more nurses and 3,000 more midwives. Defence spending is to be protected with projected rises in real terms to come and 6,000 new jobs would be created in the police, prison service and border force. On the taxation side, inheritance tax would be abolished, the personal allowance raised to at least £13,000 with the threshold for the top 40% band raised to £56,000 and the introduction of a new intermediate 30% band for incomes in the £43,500 to £55,000 income bracket. </p>
<p>This amounts to around £32 billion of commitments over the lifetime of the next parliament. They would be paid for by tackling what UKIP refers to as “politically correct spending programmes”. The largest savings are identified in terms of stopping payments to the European Union (saving £9 billion), cutting the aid budget to 0.2% of national income (£11 billion) and abandoning the Barnett formula for determining how public expenditure is allocated (£5 billion) – this would sharply reduce expenditure in Scotland. </p>
<p>UKIP also proposes to cancel HS2 (£4 billion) and cut back various government departments, particularly slashing spending in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Altogether, this would allow them to fund their bold plans. But all of UKIP’s savings are all subject to a number of uncertainties. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukips-sums-add-up-but-should-be-treated-with-caution-40284">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Anna Vignoles, Professor of Education, Jesus College at University of Cambridge</strong></p>
<p>In many respects, UKIP’s education <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">manifesto</a> pledges are unremarkable, and their broad approach is similar to that taken by a number of the other parties. For example, UKIP pledges the need for education that is responsive to each child’s needs, emphasises the importance of high quality, well supported teachers who have high status in society, and stresses the importance of primary education in particular. </p>
<p>The party is correct in saying that these are all important elements of a high quality education system. But their proposals on grammar schools and higher education are, by contrast, much more controversial.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukips-controversial-take-on-education-40418">here</a>.</p>
<h2>EU relations</h2>
<p><strong>Susan Milner, Reader in European Politics at University of Bath</strong></p>
<p>UKIP’s vision for Britain’s future rests on an exit from the European Union. This vision is laid out in a section in their manifesto unambiguously entitled <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf?1429295050">“Brexit”</a>. UKIP states that a withdrawal from the EU means the UK can take back control of business and employment legislation and immigration rules, and sets out how the party would go about withdrawing the UK’s membership.</p>
<p>Two crucial aspects of this strategy are unclear. First, although everything in UKIP’s manifesto is based on a withdrawal from the EU, the manifesto calls for a referendum on the question of membership. The reasons for this are not hard to fathom. Without locating withdrawal within the context of some kind of public consultation, the party’s critique of the EU as undemocratic and bureaucratic could be seen as hypocritical. </p>
<p>Indeed, the party’s support is often seen as resting on a wider public disaffection with established politics, and a call to more <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27973093">direct forms of democracy</a>. Tactically, UKIP cannot hope to take office, but must aim for a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-says-ukip-would-prop-up-tories-in-next-government-in-return-for-eu-referendum-9789762.html">“kingmaker” role</a> in a future coalition. By calling for a referendum, UKIP is forming a bridge to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-the-conservatives-take-a-combative-approach-to-the-eu-40206">Conservative manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>Yet a referendum on EU membership has never been the party’s main aim, nor has it been the key focus of its support. <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/12/the-ukip-threat-is-not-about-europe/">Lord Ashcroft’s 2012 poll</a> – which was the first major insight into UKIP support – showed that it rested on a more diffuse sense of unease and loss. But the most glaring inconsistency in the manifesto is the leap from referendum to withdrawal: UKIP takes an “out” vote for granted. Assuming that Britain would vote to leave the EU is a very risky strategy indeed.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-ukip-risks-it-all-on-a-brexit-40715">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Richard Cookson, Research Fellow at University of York</strong></p>
<p>In essence, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) propose to solve the problems of the NHS by spending more money. The risk, of course, is that the NHS could swallow this extra money without delivering improved quality and outcomes for patients. UKIP do not explain how they will get value for money from this spending. And like the other parties, they do not spell out what tax increases and spending cuts in other areas of public spending will be required to accommodate the NHS’ <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/docs/Crawford_Stoye_Lancet_Mar2015.pdf">ever increasing share of public expenditure</a>. </p>
<p>The UKIP manifesto does, however, devote a substantial amount of space to the issue of “health tourism”, whereby foreign nationals come to the UK to obtain free health care. As set out later in the article, this kind of “health tourism” actually costs less than one fifth of 1% of the NHS budget. The space devoted to this issue by UKIP is therefore <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6444?ijkey=6dbca2094d28ca63209473439ee3e12dffad98ac&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha">wholly disproportionate</a> to its economic importance.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-health-tourism-only-costs-as-much-as-ukips-free-parking-pledge-40276">here</a>. </p>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Catherine Harris, Research Fellow at University of Sheffield</strong></p>
<p>UKIP’s stance on controlling immigration has been subject to ongoing public and political scrutiny for years. Now, at last, the party’s <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015">manifesto</a> has outlined its policies and how they would be achieved in greater detail. </p>
<p>UKIP claims that the only way for the UK to control its borders is to leave the European Union. Since the UK remains in the EU, UKIP’s immigration policies are bound to abide by the EU’s fundamental principle of <a href="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/index_en.htm">free movement of people</a> – but they also seek to significantly reduce immigration. </p>
<p>The party is proposing an <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-would-australias-immigration-system-work-in-britain-38424">Australian-style points-based immigration system</a>. All migrants would need to have insurance to access the health system, and migrants would not be allowed to claim benefits in the UK unless they had paid into the system for five years and obeyed the law. </p>
<p>According to Nigel Farage, the resulting “big reduction in numbers” coming to the UK would relieve pressure on schools, hospitals and houses. </p>
<p>While it may be the case that lower immigration would take some pressure off services (and even that is <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-are-migrants-draining-the-welfare-system-17671">not clear</a>), reducing immigration could have serious negative effects too. Don’t forget that migrants put a lot back into the UK economy through <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0.html">taxes</a>, for instance.</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/40419/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Cookson 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>Anna Vignoles receives funding for her research from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Institute for Fiscal studies, the Nuffield Foundation, the Department for Education and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. But this article does not represent 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>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>Jonathan Perraton 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>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>Our experts asses the credibility of UKIP’s top ticket policies.Richard Cookson, Reader and NIHR Senior Research Fellow, University of YorkAnna Vignoles, Professor of Education, Jesus College, University of CambridgeCatherine Harris, Research Fellow in EU migration and ethnic entrepreneurship, University of SheffieldJonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of SheffieldSusan Milner, Reader in European Politics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402632015-04-16T14:14:28Z2015-04-16T14:14:28ZManifesto Check: UKIP policies would make climate change worse<p>In disarming and Python-esque style, Nigel Farage began UKIP’s recent election broadcast with the words: “And now for something completely different”. And here’s the evidence: a raft of environmental policies that fly in the face of most scientific advice on climate change, strongly driven by the party’s anti-EU philosophy.</p>
<p>The energy section of UKIP’s manifesto consists mainly of promises to abolish the major climate policies that successive UK governments have put in place over the past couple of decades: repeal of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050">2008 Climate Change Act</a> that provides for cutting UK emissions by 80% by 2050 through a series of steadily reducing carbon budgets; termination of assistance to new windfarms and solar energy, for example by ending feed-in tariffs for new schemes; withdrawal from <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm">the EU Emissions Trading Scheme</a>; and abolition of green taxes and levies in order to reduce fuel bills. The justification for this approach is a claim that the Climate Change Act imposes an £18 billion annual cost on the UK economy. Compare this with the economic assessment of not acting on climate change in the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080910140413/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf">Stern Review</a>.</p>
<p>Instead UKIP proposes to encourage expansion of coal mining and the building of new coal-fired power stations, and to help win support for fracking by using some of the proceeds to finance a Sovereign Wealth Fund.</p>
<p>The inevitable consequence of abolishing climate policies and encouraging coal would be a huge increase in UK CO2 emissions. This is not mentioned in the text. In fact climate change itself isn’t mentioned. It is as if it isn’t happening despite the abundance of <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">scientific evidence</a> that it is. </p>
<p>To top it off, UKIP also promises to scrap the EU’s <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/lcp/legislation.htm">Large Combustion Plant Directive</a>, which is designed to reduce other forms of air pollution from power stations, including sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, and to block the planned Medium Plant Combustion Directive. Again, this appears to wilfully ignore ongoing <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749114005144">concerns about urban air quality</a> in particular.</p>
<p>Most academic analysts would argue that these are dangerous policies, as major UK backtracking on climate policy would make achievement of a global climate agreement much more difficult: if the UK won’t reduce its emissions, some other governments may say, why should we? The result would be disastrous if global temperatures climbed past the two degree threshold and the world moved into a new era of major climate disruption.</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/40263/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>Backtracking on climate policy would make achievement of a global climate agreement much more difficult, with disastrous results.Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityIan Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of PlymouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.