The final copy was released this week. Whilst most of the content is largely the same as the draft, there was less about costing within the draft. This led to media rhetoric about funding rather than focusing on the positive policies. Why does the population question how #Labour will fund their policies and the Conservatives are largely allowed to run with a blank cheque?

Despite the evidence that suggests Labour have been fiscally more reliable than the Conservatives throughout history.

Conservative policy

Theresa May announced that they would scrap the 1983 #mental health Act and replace it plus, employ a further 10,000 mental health staff.

Advertisements
Advertisements

However, those who are campaigners and experts have stated that it is underfunding rather than bad legislation. The Conservatives have failed to provide any idea of how it’ll be costed as well but it was met with widespread positivity from the public. The only form of funding they have mentioned is the an apparent £1.4bn ‘real-term’ rise in funding except this is neither provable nor disprovable.

The rise in ‘real-term’ funding is merely conjecture and other NHS policies will have an impact on whether this rise will happen plus current NHS funding means there will be no real term rise by 2018/19. If it does happen, then the Conservatives are saying “we can afford this” and if that is the case why is there harsh cuts on the health services and austerity being pushed onto the most vulnerable now?

Trident is another pointless system that we spend vital resources on, at what point should it be used? The last resort? Ask yourself, what is the last resort? You’ll find that the last resort is often when it is too late, why waste public money on a pointless system, when it can be put to better use.

Advertisements

Labour policy

You will also find that when the Conservative government wanted to commit to further wars, they find the money to do so and give large tax cuts to big corporations. Labour on the other hand have stated that they would create a national education service, ban 30+ class sizes, remove adult learner fees and bring back student grants. Paid through reversing corporate tax cuts and raising it to 26 per cent. They have also promised that 95% of earners will not receive a tax rise, this means that if you earn less than £80,000 a year, you will not receive a tax rise.

These policies are costed, the latter is self-funded but received negative response from many the public. When did it become acceptable to push the tax burden onto those who earn the least in society whilst affording the largest corporations massive tax breaks and funding wars abroad. A lot of public comments have been along the lines of “taxing the hardest workers and allowing the lazy to get all the benefits”. This is tired rhetoric that is still being pushed and believed by many, despite overwhelming evidence against the notion.

Advertisements

If you earn £80,000 or more, you are in the to 5% of earners.

Continued rhetoric

Conservatives have promised very few policies that include repealing the ban on #Fox Hunting. A blood-sport that is played by those who have privilege and money, it is not a countryside sport. Theresa May said she liked fox-hunting, is it any wonder that a woman who happily declares she likes blood-sport, would be involved in a government that has seen measures implemented by her colleagues at the DWP be directly linked to deaths of individuals. Is it a surprise in 2014 as Home Secretary she lost 114 files linking MPs to child sex abuse?

People will happily remember Diane Abbott’s mistake on live radio where she got a figure mixed up but later corrected herself. But forget the 48,000 students that Theresa May wrongly deported or her introduction of the Snoopers Charter, that allows unprecedented access to the publics web browsing history by police, security services and official agencies. This doesn’t clarify the extent of who can access the data. Theresa May’s mistakes have had a human impact but the public would rather forget that because she is ‘strong and stable’.