A lot of this manifesto is Labour 2015 - and now is the right time for it (poor Ed!).
From Guardian:
"Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told the BBC that the spending plans in the Conservative manifesto would probably not require much extra tax.
"While there is not an absolute promise not to increase income tax or national insurance, what you have got is a pretty modest set of proposals which probably isn’t going to require terribly much in the way of tax increases.
If you look at the Labour party proposals, they have costed out their spending proposals at a pretty big £75bn. To be clear, £75bn is a very, very big number indeed, and they have promised £50n of tax rises.
The big difference is that from the Labour party we have a much bigger state, much more spending, much more tax. In the Conservative manifesto we have much more small-c conservatism. There isn’t a lot more spending or a lot more tax."
He also said that the Conservative manifesto “pretty much matches” Labour’s plans for spending on health.
And he said the Tories have left themselves “wriggle room” by keeping the target date of 2025 for eliminating the deficit."
BBC summary of main points:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311
My thoughts:
Fox hunting: free vote, won't get through, red herring. Move on.
Social care: an attempt to equalise the intergenerational unfairness. My parents paid very little for their house 40yrs ago - it is now worth a fortune. They haven't "earnt" that money - it's an increase in wealth through the rise of the house market. Should they therefore use that increased value, down to £100,000 (still more than they paid for it) to fund any care they may need either in a care home or in their own home...and then when they are both dead, I will pay the state back, down to £100,000 (4x the current limit). Or should I be entitled to the full value of their house when they both die as an inheritance? Of course, I'm happy for tax payers to subsidise my inheritance, but I personally think this is a fairer approach. However, Dilnot was not happy with it, so I want to try and understand that. Also realise that if you get cancer everything is paid for but if you get dementia nothing is - seems ridiculous. But this is a key issue with a reduced workforce earning money and paying tax (hence the need for immigration) and an ageing population which is living longer. The social care bill is going to balloon in the future unless we get a grip of it now.
OAPs: I'm happy means testing is coming in. The poorest OAPs still get everything but my parents currently give away their winter fuel allowance to charity because they don't need it, but the system will not stop paying it to them. I hope this means support for the most needy is greater. Another example of trying to reduce inter generational inequality (because younger people's taxes pay for a universal benefit which should be means tested).
Other: support for fracking, HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and Heathrow expansion (emphasis on developing skills and careers of British workers),
Brexit: IMO the most important issue. Whoever wins has to navigate through these choppy waters. If it doesn't go well, the domestic issues will pale into insignificance as we will have bigger issues to deal with.....