Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: Energy and Environment

We've heard a lot of Environmental Issues bashing over the past year. Climate Change deniers have been crawling out the woodwork, intent on trying to derail the brilliant Paris Agreement on Climate Change that would see global temperatures ideally reduce by 2C by 2030. There are right-wing commentators who are lusting after the economic opportunities opened up by fracking (shale gas exploration) without caring about the impact on the rural communities and wildlife that they've probably never bothered to visit. Clean Air isn't seen as much of a priority than it should be. And in the UK we are worried about the potential impact on Brexit on rural communities and wildlife with only vague commitment being shown by the Conservatives to guarantee EU environment directives are kept (intact) in UK legislation post-Brexit. I care deeply about the future of the countryside and our native species and I want to see cleaner air in our cities with green spaces in our cities protected from development. Therefore I read the manifesto promises on the Environment very carefully.

Labour:

• Labour have noted that the Conservatives, under David Cameron and Theresa May's leadership have "broken their promise to be the greenest government ever". This is clear from the Government's recent decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank (after it was established under the Coalition Government thanks to Vince Cable) and their Clean Air Strategy, which has been criticised by High Court judges for being too weak on effective policy.
• Labour would "introduce an immediate emergency price cap" so that average dual-fuel bills remain under £1,000 a year,
• Labour would bring the enemy system back into public ownership, starting with regaining control of energy supply networks and then support the creation of local energy companies and co-operatives that would be accountable with one in every region of the UK. Publicly owned companies would also be able to purchase regional grid infrastructure and national grid infrastructure would eventually come back into public ownership "over time" (i.e. it'd take more than 1 parliamentary term to enact the policy).
• Labour would insulate 4 million homes to reduce fuel poverty deaths "as an infrastructure priority".
• Homeowners would be given the opportunity to take out interest-free loans to improve their property (hope this doesn't mean installing garden features).
• Labour would improve the Landlord Energy Efficient regulations and re-establish the Landlord Energy Saving Allowance. 
• Labour would "invest in new state-of -the-art low-carbon gas and renewable energy" with a target of "60% of the UK's energy coming from zero-carbon or renewable sources by 2030".
• Labour would ban fracking because we're meant to be moving away from an economy that relies on fossil fuels and we're meant to be reducing the amount of gas extraction after 2030 (according to the Committee on Climate Change).
• Labour are committed to investing in carbon capture and storage systems.
• Labour would create a strategy to protect North Sea oil and gas assets and jobs. 
• Labour would invest in renewable energy projects including tidal lagoons. 
• Labour would continue to support future nuclear projects (and commit to protect nuclear workers' jobs and pensions) but admit there are opportunities for decommissioning on a national and international level. 
• Labour would remain a member of Euratom because it allows the UK to "trade fissile material" and allow nuclear firms to collaborate on research. 
• The Paris Agreement on Climate Change and Climate Change Act targets would be fully honoured. 
• Labour would give financial backing to low carbon sector businesses so they can "secure crucial shares of global export markets".
• Labour would prioritise tariff-free access to energy sources from Europe post Brexit.
• Labour would invest in firms who develop and manufacture low-emission vehicles in the hope they "create cleaner modes of transport".
• Labour would "retrofit 1000s of diesel buses in areas with the most severe air quality problems to Euro 6 standards"; Euro 6 standards were the latest to be introduced by the EU (in September 2015) and slashes the amount of Nitrogen Oxide emissions from 0.18g/km to 0.08g/km (see more https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/euro-emissions-standards/). The UK will probably maintain these standards post-Brexit. 
• Labour would give the Fire & Rescue Services "a statutory duty to co-ordinate and respond to floods" and "fund robust flood resilience". 
• Labour would guarantee all existing EU directives and look at expanding environmental quality standards. 
• Labour would introduce a new Clean Air Act. 
• Labour would safeguard all habitats and species in the "blue belts" of the seas and oceans surrounding the UK.
• Labour would set targets for plastic bottle deposit schemes.
• Labour would protect British bee species by prohibiting neonicotinoids "as soon as the EU relationship" allows them to (I wonder why the EU haven't banned them yet?)
• Labour would work with "farmers and foresters" to plant 1 million native trees to "promote biodiversity" and aid flood management. 
• Labour would keep all forests in public hands.
• Labour would establish a "science innovation fund" which would include working with farmers and fisheries and there is a pledge to support small scale fishing fleets (no idea what kind of support that would entail, though).
• Labour would increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of animal cruelty . The guidance from the Sentencing Council (updated in April 2017) states that under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, people convicted of animal cruelty can face an unlimited fine for the least serious offence (lesser harm, low culpability) to a maximum of 6 months in jail in England and Wales (http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/animal-cruelty-revised-2017/2-animal-cruelty-revised-2017/). Battersea Cats and Dogs Home believe that the maximum sentence should be increased to 5 years to bring it in line with Northern Irish sentencing guidelines.
• Labour would promote "cruelty-free animal free husbandry" and introduce a consultation period on how to better enforce those standards.
• Labour would prohibit the third-party sale of puppies.
• Labour would introduce a total ban on the sale of ivory.
• Labour would support the ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.
• Labour has committed to stopping the badger cull, which they believe spreads bovine TB rather than reduces cases.
• Labour would maintain the bans on fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing. 

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems want to establish a "Cabinet Committee on Sustainability" which would be chaired by a cabinet minister and establish an "Office for Environmental Responsibility" to scrutinise a future Lib Dem government's efforts to meet ambitious targets that are set out in their manifesto.
• The Lib Dems would introduce an Air Quality Plan and pass a Green Transport Act to reduce air pollution which they argue would help prevent 40,000 premature deaths a year. Measures contained within the Air Quality Plan include:
• a diesel scrappage scheme with a total ban on the sale of diesel cars and small vans by 2025
• an extension of Ultra-Low Emission Zones to 10 more cities and towns across the UK
• all private-hire vehicles (such as London Taxis) and diesel buses which are licenced to run in urban areas will have to run on ultra-low emission or zero-emission fuels by 2022.
• The Lib Dems would reform vehicle taxation so that there are more incentives available to increase sales of electric cars and there would be funding available to increase the number of electric car charging points across the UK.
• The Lib Dems would pass a Zero Carbon Act which would put in place legally-binding targets to "reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2040 and down to 0% by 2050". 
• A British Housing and Infrastructure Development Bank would be created which would be able to invest in low-carbon sustainable housing and infrastructure. 
• The Lib Dems would retain the Paris Agreement targets and "play a leadership role in international efforts to combat climate change" (I must admit it'd be fun seeing Tim Farron try and take Donald Drumpf to task on his lacklustre knowledge of sustainable green jobs and climate change!)
• Renewable energy capacity would be expanded under a Lib Dem Government, with a target set of "60% of electricity being generated from renewable energy sources by 2030". The Lib Dems would restore support for installation of solar PV (Photovoltaic) systems and onshore wind farms "in appropriate locations" and build more electricity interconnectors to "underpin this higher reliance on renewables". 
• The Lib Dems would "support investment in energy storage, smart-grid technology, hydrogen technologies, offshore wind and tidal power" and they would fund the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. There would also be more investment for Green Research and Development.
• The Lib Dems would "support an ambitious carbon capture and storage programme".
• The Lib Dems still support the building of new nuclear power stations but only when concerns about safety, waste disposal and cost are fully addressed.
• The Lib Dems would ensure that the UK remains a member of Euratom because they believe collaboration on nuclear research and development is essential and it allows UK nuclear scientists to retain access to research funding.
• The Lib Dems would bring in a Green Buildings Act which will include an ambition for every home in England reaching Energy rating Band C by 2025.
• 4 million homes would be made highly energy efficient (Band C) by 2022, with fuel poverty struck households receiving help as a priority.
• The Zero Carbon Standard for new homes would be reintroduced after the Tories scrapped the Standard with it being extended to non-domestic buildings by 2022.
• Community energy schemes would be expanded with local authorities being encouraged to create and/or invest in energy saving projects and generating local electricity. 
• Local authorities would be encouraged to promote demonstration projects such as investing in electric vehicles.
• The Lib Dems would back new entrants to the energy market to take on the Big 6 Energy firms with 30% of households receiving their energy from competitors of the Big 6 by 2022.
• The Lib Dems would establish a £2bn flood prevention fund which would provide support to small community and council-led schemes in an effort to "reduce upstream flooding". The Lib Dems would also aim to improve flood defences and introduce higher standards for "flood resilience" for buildings and infrastructure in flood risk areas. This policy could directly help people in areas such as Boston and Hull who want to see better flood prevention schemes in place.
• The Lib Dems would pass a Nature Act which would finally put the Nature Capital Committee on a statutory footing. 
• The Lib Dems are committed to "significantly expanding the amount of accessible green space", including the completion of the coastal path and create new National Nature parks to protect up to 1 million acres of accessible green space.
• The Lib Dems would "protect and restore" all of England's lakes, rivers and wetlands (through introducing higher water efficiency standards) and commit to creating a"marine blue belt".
• A tree is to be planted for every UK citizen over the next 10 years to help protect the UK's ancient woodlands.
• Use of neonicotinoids would be suspended "until their use in agriculture does not harm bees or other pollinators" (different stance taken from Labour).
• Like Labour the Lib Dems would introduce stronger animal cruelty penalties.
• The Lib Dems would ban caging of hens.
• Illegal pet imports would be reduced by bringing in "legal identification requirements for online sales".
• The Lib Dems will fund research into animal experimentation alternatives. 
• The Lib Dems haven't committed to ending the badger cull; instead they will look into humane ways of controlling bovine TB and provide investment to produce "workable vaccines".
• The Lib Dems want to pass a Zero Waste Act, with "legally binding targets for reducing net consumption of key resources" and introducing incentives to try and get businesses to invest in resource efficiency. 
• The Lib Dems would introduce a 5p charge on disposable coffee cups.
• A statutory recycling target of 70% would be set in England and "separate food waste collection" will happen in at least 90% of homes by 2022.
• "A coherent tax and regulatory framework for landfill, incineration and waste collection" is to be established under a Lib Dem Government, with them reinstating the Landfill Tax escalator (and extending the escalator to the lower rate). There would be consultation on the introduction of an Incineration Tax too.

Conservatives:

• The Conservatives have pledged to ensure the UK has the lowest energy costs in Europe for businesses as well as households. 
• There would be an industrial energy efficient scheme created for large companies to incentivise them to put in measures to reduce energy use and cut bills.
• Smart meters would be offered to every home and business by the end of 2020 (but no idea as to how much this would actually cost).
• Energy provider switching would be made easier with a "safeguard tariff cap" introduced.
• The Conservatives want to hold a review into the cost of energy production to ensure the costs remain "as low as possible" but ensure there is a reliable energy supply. 
• The Conservatives commit to meeting the 2050 carbon emission reduction target. 
• The Conservatives "aim to lead the world in environmental protections" including reaffirming the commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. There would be "greater co-operation within international bodies" which would help to further protect endangered species. There is also a reaffirmed commitment to creating a Marine "Blue Belt" that would include British Overseas Territories; the Conservatives claim that this would create "the largest marine sanctuaries anywhere in the world". 
• The Conservatives have pledged to "maintain the UK's global leadership in offshore wind" and have also stated that they are open to expanding onshore wind projects in "the remote islands of Scotland" (because they say local communities would benefit directly from the investment with extra job creation) but no such plans are suggested for England (that might raise a few eyebrows).
• The Conservatives are committed to spending more on energy storage and promoting the smart grid (like the Lib Dems have also promised).
• The Conservatives fully back fracking (and shale gas exploration) and would make it easier for companies to get planning permission for exploratory wells with "major shale planning decisions" being taken out of local council hands into those of the National Planning Regime. There would be a Shale Environmental regulator who would "provide clear governance" and "allow decisions to be made fairly". Proposals for a Shale Gas Wealth Fund will also change so that local communities receive more from shale gas tax revenues, perhaps with the payments "being made directly to the people themselves". However most of the shale gas tax revenue would be invested nationally. 
• There is a commitment in the manifesto to help support the oil and gas industry but even the Conservatives have accepted that there will be eventual decommissioning of the North Sea basin. So they see an opportunity to develop a  "world leading decommissioning" sector so that jobs can be created that could be filled by those whose jobs are at risk as a result of decommissioning the North Sea basin in the first place. 
• The Conservatives want to make the UK the global leader in "electric vehicle technology" and have set a target of "every car and van to be zero-emission by 2050" with a £600m investment made by 2020.
• The number of low-emission buses would increase.
• The Conservatives would "deliver on their commitment to improve natural flood management" 
• Forests and woodland would be kept entirely in public hands and there would be "stronger protections" for ancient woodland.
• There would be action taken on animal welfare (yet they want to allow MPs to vote on repealing the Hunting Act, meaning that fox hunts may be allowed in the future despite 83% of the public, including 70% of Conservatives being against the reintroduction of fox hunting when they were asked in a 2015 Ipsos MORI poll...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/opposition-to-fox-hunting-hits-all-time-high-with-even-most-tory-voters-opposed-a6786411.html ). 
• The Conservatives would make every slaughterhouse install CCTV systems and control the live farm animal slaughter export system soon after the UK leaves the EU.
• The Conservatives will follow through on their plans to tighten pet sales, with sales of puppies younger than 8 weeks being made illegal and anyone who breeds and sells 3 or more puppy litters a year to have a formal licence with irresponsible breeders facing an unlimited fine or up to 6 months in prison. Anyone who "trades commercially in pets online" will also need a licence (see more here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-crack-down-on-backstreet-puppy-breeders).
• The Conservatives have committed to planting 11 million trees previously and now commit to planting another 1 million trees in towns and cities and ensure that local councils consult with their residents before they cut trees down. 
• The Conservatives would reduce litter by "supporting comprehensive rubbish collection and recycling, supporting better packaging" and forcing councils to remove roadside litter and prosecute offenders when they are caught littering. 
• The Conservatives say they will "be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it", with a 25 year Environmental Plan drawn up explaining how environmental protections will strengthen as we leave the EU. However, you have to question whether a party who advocates fracking and fox hunting can really be seen to be environmentally friendly. 

Overall Thoughts:
In terms of overall vision and policy provided by the 3 mainstream parties, the Lib Dem manifesto seems to me to be the most thoroughly comprehensive, with practical ideas given on how to reduce carbon emissions as well as detail on legislation that they believe would need to be passed to help improve air quality, provide more green transport and improve waste recycling services. However, the introduction of a 5p charge on disposable coffee cups would not be welcome news to workers who drink their morning coffee "on the go" because of hectic working schedules and there's no commitment to ending the badger cull outright.

The Conservative manifesto is full of warm words and certain policies would appeal to voters, especially the idea of a Marine Blue Belt that includes British Overseas Territorial waters and ensuring that litter is reduced on UK streets and roads. They have also put forward the idea of creating a 25 year Environmental Plan but the unwavering commitment to fracking/shale gas exploration, the inability to accept the fact that Hunting Act remains extremely popular with UK voters and there's no need for a random free vote promise on fox hunting along with the shambles they've made with putting together a cogent Clear Air Quality Strategy along with the rather lukewarm condemnation of Donald Trump's decision to remove the US from the Paris Climate Change Agreement makes me question whether they truly care about strengthening environmental protections in the UK and increasing participation in global conservation projects around the world post Brexit.

Labour also has very warm words in their manifesto on the environment. I like their commitment to keeping the Hunting Act in place as well as suspending the Badger cull and the fact they will keep the UK free from fracking (as would the Lib Dems) pleases me. However there is a lack of policy detail in places; for example, I have no idea how Labour would "safeguard habitats and marine species in blue belts" other than suggesting that they maintain the current Conservative Government's commitment to having 127 marine protected areas and there's no idea of whether British Overseas Territorial waters will be included in safeguarding plans as the Conservatives have committed to. Also, what would the "science innovation fund" be used for RE farming and fishing? Would it be used to fund research into sustainable farming and fishing methods?

Energy-policy wise, Labour's policy seems quite ideologically driven with regards to re-nationalisation plans for energy infrastructure. I wonder whether such plans are really that much of a key priority. I like the idea of new energy co-operatives being set up to offer competitive energy prices and the idea of an immediate energy price cap of £1,000 a year will appeal to voters who are worried about prices rising during the Brexit process. I'd have thought it would have been prudent to roll out Smart Meters to households and businesses as the Conservatives will do but perhaps Mr Corbyn believes it would be wasteful.

Unfortunately it seems that the Lib Dems and Labour remain overtly committed to developing new nuclear power stations but the Conservatives do not mention nuclear power once in their manifesto; perhaps their experience negotiating Hinkley Point C has put them off expanding the industry further or perhaps they unsure as to what effect Brexit will have on the energy industry - e,g. whether they will remain a member of Euratom as the Labour and the Lib Dems have pledged to do.

Decommissioning is discussed in both Labour and the Conservatives' manifestos but focussed on different industries. Labour want to develop decommissioning services in nuclear power whereas the Conservatives will focus on developing decommissioning services in the oil and gas sector. What is clear is that both nuclear and oil and gas are not going to be the energy sources of the future and perhaps it is time to consider starting the decommissioning process for both the nuclear and North Sea oil and gas sectors.

Both the Lib Dems and Labour have committed to a target of 60% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2030; the Conservatives don't seem to have much confidence in renewable energy and instead go for the expansion of shale gas exploration line; there's no extra funding announced for geothermal energy or tidal energy projects.

All three parties have thankfully committed to keeping forests and woodland in public hands and there is a general move towards expanding renewable energy sources in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and meet legally binding targets (although the Conservatives haven't committed to providing a Carbon plan which would spell out exactly how CO2 reductions would be delivered over the next 10-15 years...they only provide the UK's 2050 C02 target).

All three parties also want to develop electric vehicle technology and put more low-emission buses on the road; the Lib Dems want to see all diesel buses in urban areas running on low-emission or zero-emission fuels by 2022 but there's no idea as to how much it will cost whereas Labour has only committed to retrofitting diesel buses in areas with high levels of air pollution, which might be more achievable.

Overall, I am pleased at the breadth of policies that have been offered in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos and remain confident that EU environmental protections can be maintained by a progressive government. We need a strong Clean Air Act to ensure that everyone can play their part towards reducing air pollution in our towns and cities and the Conservatives do not really have a very good record on this. The most recent Clean Air Strategy plan published by the Government has been criticised for being weak, with no plans for a national network of clean air zones in urban areas which would not have charges for the most polluting vehicles to deter them from driving and have literally passed responsibility for air quality to local authorities who already have squeezed budgets. The Conservatives will not commit to a diesel scrappage scheme either. This comes after years of heel-dragging by a Tory Department for Energy, Food and Rural Affairs where several plans were ruled as illegal by the High Court and there was even an attempt to delay publication of the recent plan which the High Court rejected, based on the fact that they were meant to publish the plan by the 24th April prior to the election being called (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/27/air-pollution-plan-election-campaign-bomb-court-government). Perhaps the only way forward in uncertain Brexit times is to ensure the Government can continue to be held to account for their Clean Air Strategy and that could be best achieved through a new Act. The Conservatives will never approve such an Act so my only choice is to vote for either the Lib Dems or Labour.

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: Education

This week has seen the launch of the mainstream (Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative) manifestos As an independent (that's still leaning towards Labour at the moment) I was keen to explore the manifestos to see which centre and centre-left policies have made the final cut. In terms of layout and presentation I must say that Labour and the Lib Dems have done well; it's easy to scroll through and access the sections that interest me particularly whereas the Conservative manifesto's more verbose and in paragraph style, which can be difficult for voters with learning differences to follow. Anyways, I guess it's only polite for me to offer my initial thoughts on the manifestos, starting with one of my interest areas, Education.

Labour:
"The National Education Service"
Labour knows the importance of making education and training accessible to all people in the UK. This means providing opportunities for those who wish to upskill, retrain to improve their job prospects and those who wish to learn new skills as part of an evening community course as well as helping young people who wish to attend sixth form to study A-Levels or attend university without having to worry about a massive debt burden. Labour wishes to create a "National Education Service" that provides opportunities "from the cradle to the grave" which is "free at the point of use". Seeing education "in the round" is a very progressive and radical concept.

• There would be a "complete overhaul" of the childcare system, which would include direct subsidies being given to parents "who often struggle to use them" (no idea what this refers to); The commitment to providing 30 hours of free childcare would be extended to 2 year olds which would help more mothers in particular to try and find part-time work is welcome and I find the idea of "phasing in subsided provision" beyond the 30 hour entitlement interesting provided the entitlement wasn't given out universally (why should those on the National Living Wage subsidise childcare for parents earning over £100,000 a year for example? Not even the Conservatives allow this to happen currently). I'm pleased to see there is a wish to create a "graduate-led workforce" in childcare but this must include giving current employees access to appropriate training and development otherwise this "desire" would be discriminative. Extending maternity pay to one year would also be welcome news.
• Labour would stop Sure Start closures and increase funding (although there's no idea in the manifesto how much would be allocated to the Sure Start (in the funding document it suggests that it'd be part of the overall childcare budget cost which would be £5.3bn). 
• Conservative plans to cut overall school funding by £3bn by 2020 will be reversed under a Labour Government. Instead Labour would introduce a fairer funding formula of their own. 
• Labour would invest in repairing school buildings and pay for the phased removal of asbestos (this needs to be done).
• Joined-up admissions policies which would apply to every local authority school so that councils can ensure every child has a school place sounds OK on paper; there shouldn't be any child left without a school place and simpler admissions procedures would apply to teachers as well as parents. However, not quite sure how this would work in practice and what criteria would be applied across the board. 
• Reducing class sizes in primary schools for 5, 6 and 7 year olds to below 30 will appeal to teachers and some parents but it will require the recruitment of more teachers and teaching assistants to work in practice. That means staffing budget costs will increase. 
• Introducing free school meals for all primary school pupils in England again sounds good on paper but is it right for wealthy pupils to receive a free school meal? 
• I tend to be more in favour of "continuous assessment" aka formative assessment as opposed to summative assessment alone because it allows for students to improve their overall performance as they go along; they have more awareness of their strengths and weaknesses and can develop their own learning styles. Therefore I'm pleased to see a commitment not to reintroduce baseline tests (which teachers have argued creates unnecessary workload and risks pupil self-confidence development) and for there to be a review into the National Curriculum Key Stages 1 and 2 SATs (after the National Union of Teachers threatened to strike after the "chaotic" introduction of new SAT tests). 
• Labour would allow education professionals to be "directly involved in the National Curriculum"; I'm not sure whether this means they would be able to make suggestions as to content or assessment methods. 
• Labour would try to reduce the bureaucratic burden on teachers; it seems this would be achieved by reducing monitoring paperwork but again there is no detail here.
• Having a consultation on the feasibility of introducing teacher sabbaticals and work experience placements in industry does sound like a good idea as it would give teachers the chance to gain some understanding of certain industries that their students could consider entering should they be successful with their qualifications. 
• Labour would reintroduce the Schools Support Staff Negotiating Body (which was abolished under the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government in 2010). The Body would help devise a national pay and conditions scheme for caretakers, school office workers and teaching assistants. Currently decisions on pay are taken on a local level by local authorities. 
• I was shocked to read that schools are being made to pay the Apprenticeship Levy; schools are not primarily businesses, even if apprentices are being taken on in administrative positions in school offices. Labour states that by abolishing the levy plan it would mean £150m would be put directly back into schools. That's not a figure to be sniffed at.
• Having a national schools counselling service in England is a great idea; young people's mental health needs must be met and counselling can be one way of doing this. £90m does sound a fair chunk to pay but why should counselling services only be available to some schools?
• I look forward to seeing more detail on Labour's SEND (Special Educational Needs) strategy in the future. As a dyspraxic person who benefitted greatly from 1-1 psychotherapy and educational psychologist supervision at primary and junior school in the late 1990's, I understand the importance of early years intervention; without having dedicated support whilst young I'd have never have achieved the GCSEs and A-Levels (5 A's and 1 C at A-Level and 1 AS at Grade B) to have attended University. I do believe more mainstream primary, junior and secondary school teachers need more training on how to support SEND students in their classes and if such training can be embedded into Continuing Professional Development plans it would help improve student outcomes, particularly amongst students with learning disabilities (or as I like to say, learning differences). Modern Foreign Language teachers for example could learn different visual techniques to reach dyslexic and dyspraxic students who may be struggling with spelling and learning new grammatical patterns. I know it can be done because I managed to achieve A*s in French, German and Spanish at GCSE and then went on to study A Level French and German. 
• Under a Labour Government, funding for post 16 education at Key Stage 5 would be split between FE colleges and sixth forms roughly equally (although there are currently 93 sixth form colleges in England 
• Introducing free adult education in FE colleges would be a fantastic achievement for a future Labour Government. As I previously thought, the Conservative plans for new technical colleges would be abandoned, with the money being put back into funding for more FE lecturers. 
• Labour would implement the proposals put forward in the Sainsbury review, with technical pathways (or T-Levels) being available in service industries (which would include accounting and finance, hairdressing and the law...see more on the Sainsbury Review here: https://www.tes.com/news/further-education/breaking-news/sainsbury-review-what-changes-are-way-post-16-education). Labour would also provide funding so that FE colleges could help deliver an official pre-apprenticeship training programme that I imagine would include a basic grounding in English and Maths (and perhaps even IT).
• Labour are committed to improving Careers Advice in colleges so that students can be given the comprehensive information they need to make decisions on their future. 
• Labour would restore the Educational Maintenance Allowance for 16-18 year olds (but only from working class and middle class backgrounds...i.e. there would be a means-test threshold in place for access to the allowance; a welcome move).
• There would no longer be a need for FE students to take out Advanced Learner Loans; instead the funding would be provided directly to FE colleges. English as a Second Language (ESOL) courses would be provided free, meaning that immigrants will have the access to the training they need to improve their English Language proficiency without worrying about cost.
• Labour would set a target for all FE lecturers to have a teaching qualification (e.g. Diploma in Education in the Lifelong Sector) within the next 5 years with funding being in place to allow teachers to attend training (some FE colleges provide this already but any help with costs would be welcome). 
• Teachers in the private sector would also get funding to help cover training costs. 
• Labour does support the Apprenticeships Levy but would make sure that apprenticeships provided are of a high quality. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education would produce an annual report for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) which "details the quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships" so that the Secretary can see that apprenticeships are being delivered that help apprentices get into "real jobs" by the end of their training and that employers do have appropriately qualified and productive staff as a result of taking apprentices on. 
• Labour have set a target of doubling the number of completed apprenticeships at Level 3 by 2022.
• Labour would set targets to increase apprenticeship opportunities for disabled people, care leavers and veterans; this would be a positive step forward depending on the number of apprenticeships offered in different occupational areas and the reasonable adjustments that can be put in place for disabled apprentices. It's also good to see a broad vision to increase take-up of apprenticeships amongst the BAME and LGBTQIA+ communities and hopefully break down gender job stereotypes. 
• Employers would get more control over how they spend the apprenticeship levy, including the ability to use some of it to help apprentices go through pre-apprenticeship training programmes (even though Labour have said before that some funding would be put in place for official pre-apprenticeship training programmes). 
• Trade Unions would get statutory representation within the Institute of Apprenticeships (no idea why trade unions actually need this but it fits in with Labour's overarching vision for expansion of trade union rights).
• Labour would "reverse cuts to Unionlearn"; most of us have no idea what Unionlearn is but essentially it's a learning platform for trade union members run by the Trade Union Congress (TUC)'s Learning and Skills Organisation under an agreement with the Department for Education to help them improve general literacy and numeracy skills as well as working with employers to promote high quality Apprenticeships. Unionlearn also provide courses for TUC reps free of charge. There are over 26,000 Union Learning Reps currently involved with Unionlearn.
• Protecting the £440m of funding for small and medium sized businesses to provide apprenticeships is a good idea; it's important for those apprenticeships to be made more available to a wider cross-section of society, including those over 25 who want to change careers.
• Labour are looking at providing incentives for larger firms to train apprentices to "fill skills gaps in the supply chain"; of course there also has to be a wider promotion of the advantages of working in the supply sector to potential recruits -e.g. more job security, chance for career progression etc.
• Labour also wants to set up a Lifelong Learning Commission to look into ways of integrating Further Education and Higher Education. I'm not sure whether this means looking at how FE colleges can offer vocational degrees (although that already happens in a number of subjects at my local FE college, Lincoln College). 
• Labour promises to abolish tuition fees (I'm guessing within the next 5 years) for all students (although it would be helpful for students and universities to know when the funding for the courses would come into effect). Labour would also reintroduce maintenance allowances for university students, although it is unclear whether there would be a means-test for these allowances (e.g. whether the student qualified for the EMA whilst at sixth form/college). Both of these measures would cost the UK an estimated £11.2bn). 

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems believe that current funding plans (i.e. The National Fair Funding Formula) scheduled for schools in England are actually unfair. So they would invest £7bn into education by:
•  reversing the £3bn cuts that would be imposed on frontline services and colleges, meaning that per-pupil funding would be protected.
• introducing a Fair Funding System but ensure there is protection for all schools so they "do not lose out in cash terms" 
• protecting the Pupil Premium so that students from disadvantaged backgrounds continue to receive the extra help that can enable them to succeed academically.
• The Lib Dems want to add an extra £1,000 per pupil, per year to the Early Years Pupil Premium. The Premium is given to early years providers who look after 3 and 4 year olds who are receiving a government-funded education and whose parents are on benefits which are used to calculate free-school meal eligibility (the government definition of a "disadvantaged 3/4 year old). 
• The Lib Dems also want to ensure that early years providers are suitable qualified, with at least one professional holding an Early Years Teacher qualification being employed "in a formal early years setting" by 2022. 
• The Lib Dems, like Labour, want to end the public sector pay cap.
• The Lib Dems want every teacher in state-funded schools to be working towards Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) or be fully qualified by January 2019; ambitious but I believe it's essential that teachers have the knowledge and skills they need to be able to deliver high-quality lessons to their students. I like the idea of there being funded Continuing Professional Development hours (25 by 2020) for teachers as it will help them develop skills needed to be successful in a changing educational environment, especially digital skills. I also hope that some teachers would be able to benefit from learning frameworks and strategies to help support students with learning disabilities/differences (dyspraxia, dyslexia, dyscalculia) and also to support students who may be experiencing mental health issues related to stress/anxiety and depression. 
• I agree with the Lib Dems that there needs to be a much more effective teacher recruitment strategy in place to fill positions in shortage subjects such as Science and Maths and liaising with Teach First could help in this respect. I do believe more needs to be done to encourage LGBTQIA+ and disabled graduates to consider a career in teaching as students who identify as LGBTQIA+ or are disabled would greatly benefit from having a role-model to look upto. 
• Teachers often say that they are being burdened with unnecessary bureaucracy and there needs to be a practical way of reducing the burden. Labour's response was to allow education professionals to get involved with government decision making but the Lib Dem response is slightly more nuanced:
• Establish an Independent Education Standards Authority which will run trials to test the effectiveness of future education policy, with the results analysed and evaluated by education professionals
• Reform Ofsted inspections so there is a greater emphasis on longer-term student outcomes and also to look at teacher workload, sickness and retention rates in individual schools to see how they could be reduced in a sustainable way
• Support the setting-up of a Independent Foundation for Leadership in Education (under the umbrella of the existing Chartered College of Teaching) to help support leaders who are trying to and succeeding to turn around challenging schools.
• The Lib Dems would also continue to work with the Education Endowment Foundation (an independent charity founded by The Sutton Trust that aims to improve attainment outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds; read more about their aims here: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about/). 
• The Lib Dems would repeal the rule that all new state-funded schools must be free-schools or academies. Instead, local authorities would be given the responsibility for local school places planning and outstanding local headteachers would be encouraged to work together with other schools to drive up standards across the local authority area.
• The Lib Dems, like Labour, are also opposed to the expansion of grammar schools. The £320m earmarked would be given to local authorities directly so that they can create additional school places. 
• Ofsted would be given powers to inspect free-schools and academy chains.
• The Lib Dems would not build any new "profit-making" state schools.
• The Lib Dems argue that new schools should only be built in areas where there are not enough school places; there's no point building a school "just for the sake of it". 
• I believe it's imperative that children are identified and assessed for special educational needs support as soon as possible. As I've mentioned above, I was very lucky to be assessed early on in my academic career and support was put in place that enabled me to develop coping strategies to overcome barriers that came about as a result of my dyspraxia. So I'm glad that the Lib Dems have noted the need for schools to invest time in identifying needs of SEN pupils and that every staff member in the school knows their responsibilities under the Equality Act.
• I'm interested in the Lib Dems' idea for a "slimmed down core curriculum". When I think of a statutory curriculum, I see Personal, Social and Health Education, Art, Drama, Music, History, Geography, Religious Studies, ICT (including coding), Modern Foreign Languages and Physical Education (PE) as key components alongside English, Maths and Science. Interestingly, the Lib Dems understand that there also needs to be life skills embedded into the National Curriculum that will help students deal with the reality of life after school. I can't see many people objecting to their secondary school kid(s) learning how to be responsible with their money (financial literacy), how to vote (Citizenship) and how to offer emergency first aid to a friend. I'm personally pleased to see a commitment to introducing Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) that is LGBT+ inclusive. The Conservatives have suggested that they will "offer guidance" on LGBT+ relationships and issues but it seems from the absence of LGBT+ issues from the manifesto that it wouldn't be a priority and may not be taught in all schools. Labour would "look into" making SRE LGBT+ inclusive after further consultation with organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust. 
• The Education Standards Authority would be asked to pilot, phase-in and resource future changes to the "slimmed down core curriculum". 
• The Lib Dems want to reform SATs at Key Stage 2. 
• The Lib Dems would "protect the availability of arts and creative subjects" but unlike Labour there is no commitment to bring in a specific Arts Pupil Premium.
• The Lib Dems say they wish to improve vocational education, with schools partnering with local businesses to create "employment and enterprise schemes".
• The Lib Dems will challenge gender stereotyping, encouraging teachers to talk about positive body image and break down stereotypes by promoting role models who challenged gender norms-e,g. Ava Lovelace and Grace Hopper. 
• The Lib Dems want to ensure that all teaching staff have a minimum amount of training on how to identify mental health issues, with schools providing access to immediate counselling services (difficult when there are a shortage of mental health professionals).
• The Lib Dems, like Labour and unlike the Conservatives, want to extend free school meals to all children and promote breakfast clubs. 
• The Lib Dems would establish a "Family University", with resources created by experts at the BBC and Open University accessible to all families online to help them deal with parenting  challenges (e.g. gender-fluid/ non-conforming children). 
• The Lib Dems, like Labour and the Conservatives are committed to tackling bullying in schools on the basis of gender, sexuality, gender identity or gender expression (but no extra funding has been specifically allocated).
• The Lib Dems would reinstate university maintenance grants "for the poorest students".
• The Lib Dems want to "establish a higher education (HE) finance review" to look at reforms needed to make the HE sector sustainable long-term and ensure that no student loan accounts are sold off to private companies.
• The Lib Dems want to retain access to Horizon 2020 (the EU's Research and Innovation programme) and the Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions, which help support researchers in the UK. A recent UK recipient of Marie-Sklodowska-Curie Actions, David Parker, is currently involved in analysing anti-radicalisation strategy differences between the UK and Denmark (https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/100-000-fellows_en). 
• The Lib Dems want to double the number of businesses hiring apprentices and looking at extending apprenticeships to the creative & digital industries, meaning that they may become available in usually unpaid internship heavy areas such as PR and Fashion.
• The Lib Dems would develop "National Colleges" to deliver high quality vocational education to those wishing to enter the renewable energy sector.
• The Lib Dems will work with the Apprenticeship Advisory Group to encourage people from underrepresented groups to apply for apprenticeships.
• The Lib Dems would expand higher vocational training programmes, such as foundation degrees and Higher National Diplomas.
• All receipts from the Apprenticeship Levy would be spent on training.
• The Lib Dems aim to address the basic skills need by ensuring that apprentices and employees have the literacy, numeracy and digital skills they need by 2030.
• The Lib Dems would ensure that all adults in colleges and on apprenticeships had individual access to careers advice.
• The Lib Dems would allow more students to transfer credits and receive recognition of prior learning and qualifications where appropriate.

Conservatives:
"The Great Meritocracy" 

• The Conservatives pledge to fund an extra 100 free schools a year.
• The Conservatives would stop any councils from expanding school places in schools that have been rated by Ofsted as "inadequate" or "requires improvement".  
• Universities that want to charge the maximum amount of tuition fees would need to help found or sponsor free schools (I'm guessing this would be in their immediate area-i.e. within 5 or 10 miles of the University?) 100 leading independent schools would also be allowed to get involved in academy sponsorship or the founding of free schools, with the Conservatives stating that the "tax status" of independent schools may change if they don't help. I don't see Eton or Harrow as a charity so I'd be more than happy to see the status change already! 
• The Conservatives will put funding in place (the manifesto doesn't say how much) "to create a specialist maths school in every major city in England". I'm guessing that's Lincoln's luck out.
• The Conservatives want to expand faith schools in England, especially Roman Catholic ones, changing the rules so that faith schools only need to prove their school is accessible to students and parents of any faith or who are atheist (they don't actually need to have any children with atheist parents attending). No indication of whether such schools would need to prove they are LGBTQIA+ inclusive!
• The Conservatives reaffirm their commitment to lifting the ban on new selective schools (grammars) and allowing them to take students on beyond the 11+ exam. I didn't attend a grammar school and yet I managed to succeed, despite my learning disability. I'm OK with the expansion in principle but I'd rather see school places increased in non-selective schools first.
• The Conservatives want to "strengthen literacy and numeracy" teaching in the early years but don't really give any idea as to how that would happen other than referring to the phonics screening test and ensuring that "every child knows their times-tables off by heart by the age of 11". The problem with such an expectation is that those with dyscalculia or other learning differences may find it difficult to achieve. I achieved a Level 4 in my Maths KS2 SATs but I didn't know my times-tables off by heart until I was 13 years old because it was difficult for me at the time to retain the information. When I sat KS3 SATs I achieved a Level 6 in Maths which was considered average and still achieved a Grade B at GCSE. So the times-table element alone won't really demonstrate a nuanced understanding of numeracy and there is the argument over whether "learning by rote" is really necessary in a digitised society, where we can calculate sums easily on smartphones.
• The Conservatives will "improve schools' accountability at KS3" but no idea is given as to how they may achieve this.
• The Conservatives remain committed to the EBacc (English Baccalaureate) wanting 75% of students to study for the EBacc by 2022. It's a good idea that students do get to study history or geography as it allows them to gain an understanding of UK and world issues (past and present) but I wish that Art/Drama/Music was included as an option alongside the Modern Foreign Language requirement, hence why I support the Bacc for the Future campaign: http://www.baccforthefuture.com/. 
• The Conservatives would create a "curriculum fund" to allow institutions such as the British Museum to create resources to be used in the classroom. 
• The Conservatives want to reduce "teaching the test" and ensure that primary assessments are conducted from "a rich knowledge base"....no idea what that rich knowledge base actually entails.
• The Conservatives would continue to offer teaching bursaries in shortage subjects and offer an incentive for teachers to remain in the profession by offering to pay off student loan repayments whilst they remain in the profession. 
• The Conservatives say they would "bring in dedicated support" for teachers to access throughout their career but unlike the Lib Dems they provide no detail.
• The Conservatives want to create a teaching version of the NHS Jobs portal, so that adverts are completely accessible to graduates from across the UK instead of being advertised on the local authority website. This would provide efficiency savings in the long-term.
• The Conservatives claim that their new funding formula will be fairer to all schools. They would protect every school budget under the new formula. They'd also protect the Pupil Premium and increase the overall schools budget by £4bn by 2022. 
• The Conservatives will defund universal free school meals and instead provide free breakfasts to every child in England during their entire primary education and then fund free school meals for low-income families. There's a question as to whether school hours would need to change to facilitate free breakfast provision and also whether parents are prepared to take their children to school earlier to take advantage of the provision.
• The Conservatives will introduce T-Levels (replacing 13,000 existing qualifications) and increase teaching hours to 900 per year, with each student being given a three month work placement (hopefully local businesses can liaise with colleges to facilitate this). 
• The Conservatives pledge to invest in FE colleges (but no idea how much) to help improve their facilities.
• The Conservatives want to introduce a "new national programme" to recruit experienced industry professionals into the FE sector (but my Accountancy tutors at Lincoln College already had years of practical experience).
• The Conservatives will create an "Institute of Technology" (IoTSs) in every major city in England that liaises with local businesses and universities. The IoTs would provide degrees in STEM subjects as well as Higher-Level apprenticeships. The IoTSs would be given the ability to apply for public funding for productivity and skills research and students would have access to grants and loans and be able to gain royal charter status and professorships in technical education. Absolutely no idea how much this would all cost though.
• The Conservatives will launch a review into tertiary education so that "further, technical and higher education institutions will be treated fairly". 
• The Conservatives remain committed to delivering 3 million apprenticeships (for young people only it seems) by 2020. 
• Larger firms will be able to transfer Apprenticeship Levy payments to small firms within their supply chain and a national programme will be created so that apprentices can be placed into those firms.
• Teaching apprenticeships in STEM subjects "will be explored" over the next 5 years.
• A UCAS style portal will be created for technical education.
• Apprentices will be given "significantly discounted" bus and train fares for apprentices but no such pledge is in place for college attendees. There's no commitment to reintroduce the Education Maintenance Allowance either.
• As I've mentioned before, the Conservatives offering a right to request leave for training sounds OK but it depends what kind of training would be covered under the request; at the moment employers do tend to allow their employees to attend training courses that relate directly to their job position. 
• The "National Retraining Scheme" sounds great for those in businesses who need to retrain to maintain their job. It's good that the Government would meet the cost of the scheme but I'm unsure as to whether the Apprenticeship Levy should be used by employers to fund wage costs whilst on the scheme. 
• The Conservatives want to help public sector workers gain access to higher-level roles by funding their training through "degree apprenticeships". There are teaching assistants who have a lot of experience in a classroom setting but are unable to become teachers because of "prior educational attainment"; I only hope that the apprenticeship includes the same level of training as would be given through a PGCE programme. 
• There certainly should be a right to access digital skills training throughout our lives. Technology is constantly changing and we will need to upskill from time-to-time to adapt. However I am not sure whether this means that the Conservatives will continue to fund ECDL courses which do help to improve digital literacy.
• The Conservatives would also keep students within the immigration target for the UK (even though the Russell Group of Universities has warned that this policy might not be "productive" and there could actually be "a cap on legitimate international students". The manifesto itself says that the Conservatives aim to "toughen visa requirements for students" who come from outside the EU and expect them to leave the country "unless they meet new, higher requirements" (there's no indication what these requirements would be or whether they would impact adversely on Arts graduates or those who cannot find what the Conservatives would deem "suitable employment" within what I reckon would be a very small time frame). All I keep thinking when I see these plans is "BluKIP" in action...

Thoughts:

There is such an incredible amount of information to take in but I did notice some key differences in priorities between these 3 parties. Labour are very much focussed on improving funding in schools and ensuring that universal entitlements are maintained and extended to the FE and HE sector fees. The Lib Dems have want to reform the National Curriculum to make it "fit-for-purpose" for all students and to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic burdens placed on teachers. The Conservatives have policies to reform technical/vocational education in England and to set up better systems for advertising teaching positions and also create a UCAS points style system for technical education. Labour and the Lib Dems are against the expansion of selective schools and would allow local authorities to create school places whereas the Conservatives want to expand selective schools, free schools, academies and faith schools under the banner of "school choice". Labour and the Lib Dems have committed to lifting the pay cap on teaching professionals whereas the Conservatives believe that the pay cap is essential because it helps the Government to "bring down the deficit". Labour and the Lib Dems show they value Arts education in their manifestos, with Labour going further by promising an Arts Pupil Premium for primary schools in England. The Conservatives do not even mention the importance of Arts education in their manifesto, even though they realise that the creative industries make a sizable contribution to the UK economy (£84.1bn in 2014 or 5.4% according to Government figures published in January 2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-industries-economic-estimates-january-2016/creative-industries-economic-estimates-january-2016-key-findings). The Conservatives seem to be very focussed on building new types of technical schools (but only in what they would deem "major" cities in England) but still want UK taxpayers to believe that austerity measures are vital to bringing down the deficit. Labour and the Lib Dems do have plans for technical education that do not involve expensive building projects. The Conservatives and Labour agree that FE and HE should be better integrated, with both promising to review current funding.

All three parties thankfully agree that SRE should be implemented in schools but Labour and the Lib Dems place (quite rightly) an emphasis on making SRE LGBT+ inclusive, rather than just relying on the proposed dissemination of very basic guidance sheets to teachers. The Conservatives want to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying but do not realise that the best way to do this is to educate children about gender identity and sexuality in a sensitive, age-appropriate way. Bullying can happen as a result of ignorance about gender identity and sexuality, after all and it takes more than the odd visit from a LGBT+ person from Stonewall to change the views of some students (and staff). I also believe that LGBT+ SRE should be mandatorily taught in faith schools so that the existence of LGBT+ people cannot be denied on the basis of religious fundamentalism. I understand that some devout Christians may be upset at such a proposal but if PM May and her Tory party truly believes in liberal values, then they should be prepared to insist on teachers and faith leaders in faith schools to teach about LGBT+ issues in a positive and inclusive manner.

Labour will reverse real term school budget cuts that have happened since 2015 and protect per-pupil spending in real terms over the course of the next parliament, meaning that there would be a 6% increase in per pupil spending after inflation over the next 5 years. Funding is needed in state-maintained non-selective schools to ensure that a broad National Curriculum can be delivered and teaching assistant staff can keep their jobs. Labour of course will attract votes from those who'd love to see tuition fees abolished and university maintenance grants reintroduced. I do wonder whether it's practical to hope that tuition fees can be abolished (because of what happened with the Lib Dem promise in the 2010 General Election but then they were in a coalition with the Conservatives) but at least Labour did provide a costing. The universal Free School Meals policy ruffled a few feathers but only because those parents who choose to send their children to an independent school would have to pay more VAT under a Labour Government. For many parents on the National Living Wage or who are unemployed, they do not have the ability to always provide their child with a healthy packed lunch, let alone dream of sending their child to an independent school. Attending an independent school is also no guarantee of academic success but the contact network made whilst attending the school can mean they have more chance of securing the entry-level job they need early on in their chosen career path to succeed. We need to level the playing field any way that we can. I just do not believe that grammar schools, free schools or faith schools are the answer.

There are other Labour policies that seem common sense to adopt; for example improving careers advice services and putting in £13bn to bring school buildings up to standard. The sabbaticals proposal is interesting but I do wonder how much it would cost to implement and what the take-up rate would be like. I must add that New Labour did launch a pilot sabbatical programme in 2001 that gave experienced teachers in challenging schools the chance to take one but it was scrapped in 2004 because of low-take up rates. That being said, a recent poll conducted by Schools Week (http://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Election-supplement-2017-digi.pdf) found that more than 80% of teachers agreed with Corbyn on the idea of introducing teacher sabbaticals, so perhaps take-up rates will be higher under a future Labour Government! The poll also found that teachers are eager to see national pay conditions extended to academies but the idea of scrapping baseline tests altogether for primary school pupils received mixed reviews.

Of course Labour could run the risk of over-promising and under-delivering if they were to win a majority over the next parliamentary term. A lot of Labour's education policies look good on paper, especially the pledge to increase free childcare hours to 2 year olds but is such a pledge truly deliverable? There's also a question of fairness. Is it fair to make meals free to the children of multi-millionaires who happen to attend a state primary school? Is it fair that tuition fees are made available to children of multi-millionaires? Offering a universal benefit that isn't means-tested has its downfalls but at least the EMA and probably the maintenance grant would be means-tested. When the Lib Dems failed to deliver on their pledge to "phase out tuition fees within 6 years and scrap final year fees immediately" whilst in Coalition Government, they did end up losing student and graduate support in marginal constituencies. Yet the Lib Dems couldn't implement all of their policies when they were power-sharing with a right-wing party that was intent on pressing forward with school choice vanity project free schools and academies rather than looking at the fairness of tuition fees or properly funding our FE colleges and the Lib Dem policies offered in this manifesto, including the proposal for a "Family University" to offer advice on parenting does seem practical.

Despite some concerns I have on Labour's universal education commitments, I am worried by the Conservatives' vision for our education system. I do not believe that we should be expanding selective school places at a time when non-selective school places need to be expanded first. I'm unsure as to whether relaxing rules on faith school admissions will actually lead to any improvement of attainment levels in my local area. Equally I wonder whether we really need to expand grammar schools when there is no conclusive evidence to prove that going to a grammar school helps to aid social mobility in the long-term? Lincoln has no grammar school at the moment and I've heard very few parents talk about the need for one. It seems ridiculous to me that £320m has been earmarked for the expansion of grammar schools and free schools when the Institute of Fiscal Studies has found that school spending overall will fall by a further 3% by 2020-21. The Schools Week poll found that more than 50% of respondents disagreed very strongly with the Tories lifting the ban on grammar schools. That being said, more than 50% of respondents agreed with the concept of non-degree teaching apprenticeships for teaching assistants to help ease the recruitment situation and I'd say it was an area that Labour should consider looking into if it were to win the election.

The issue of teacher recruitment and retention is an important one to address. I find it baffling that the Conservatives are still unwilling to lift the 1% cap on public sector pay (including teachers) and I'm not sure the offer of student loan relief (I'm guessing for Newly Qualified Teachers and those who'd embark on a PGCE programme from this year onwards only) will entice many graduates and teachers to vote Conservative; not when Labour's offering to abolish tuition fees overall and to scrap the cap. The Lib Dems argue that further collaboration with Teach First to help recruit more Science and Maths teachers and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in the classroom, as well as setting up an Independent Foundation for Leadership in Education will help to recruit passionate teachers and improve retention rates. Labour haven't specifically addressed teacher recruitment and retention in their manifesto, which is an unfortunate omission but I'd be pleased to hear Angela Rayner's suggestions in the future.

There was also rather embarrassing costing fiasco concerning Tory plans for providing free breakfasts for primary school pupils (£60m spend would mean that only 6.8p would be spent on a breakfast per pupil when it is estimated £600m would be needed, given that a breakfast containing bacon, two sausages, one egg and bread would cost 85p per portion...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/election-2017-conservatives-free-school-breakfast-7p-per-meal-lunch-scrap-education-manifesto-a7752991.html). If the Tories can get their costings so wrong on a reasonably progressive education policy, will they not have budgeted properly for specialist Maths colleges? I have no idea how much it'll cost to build them, let alone staff them. Is there a need for specialist maths schools? Why can't we just expand places in schools that have achieved Maths College status? What about specialist science and technology colleges? I attended one (but it became an academy). If we are more flush than previously thought, why don't we increase funding for non-selective schools and scrap the pay cap on teachers? Nobody has yet made a cogent argument as to why there is an actual need to expand the types of school in the Lincoln area rather than expand funding for existing schools first.

Equally I believe that keeping foreign students within the immigration quota is short-sighted and ridiculous; we should be pleased that students from all over the world choose to study in the UK because it demonstrates just how well-respected our academic institutions still are. The lack of a commitment to the Erasmus Programme in the Tory manifesto was also disappointing; Full Fact found that 27,100 EU students came to study at a UK university and 14, 600 UK students went abroad in the 2012/13 academic year alone: https://fullfact.org/europe/british-students-and-eu/. Labour should also fully commit to allowing UK and EU students to take part in the Erasmus Programme, as well as matching the Lib Dem commitment to keeping the UK in the Horizon 2020 programme so that collaboration on research and development projects with the EU increases rather than reduces after Brexit.

I want a bold progressive vision for education system; one that promotes inclusive education, one that values teachers regardless of which subject area they choose to specialise in or where their degree came from and one that has a clear funding strategy in place to help non-selective primary schools afford to buy the resources they need to teach creative subjects. The Conservatives think their plan for education is bold and progressive but each time PM May tries to explain it, it sounds less and less progressive and more and more pie-in-the-sky. Therefore, I believe on balance that Labour can provide a progressive vision despite my initial concerns over free school meals and tuition fees. It is better to ensure that every child has access to a nutritious, healthy meal whilst at school and I'm happy to invest in the future of British creative industries by fostering a love for the Arts at primary school age that might lead to them choosing to study Theatre Studies or English Literature at University and then enter the creative industries sector afterwards. Yes it's OK to bring in incentives to recruit Science and Maths teachers so that more students are taught those subjects in an exciting but competent manner but not every student will want to be an engineer or a computer programmer. We can't mould children into the desired economic shape; we have to foster a passion for a subject. That takes time and it takes passionate teachers and passionate teachers probably are more interested in seeing their bureaucratic workload reduce and their overall pay increase rather than receive short-term student loan "forgiveness" that will probably end when the Tories lose power or end up being restricted to STEM subjects.  Let's focus on improving standards in non-selective schools and making them all truly inclusive, passionate places of learning rather than focussing on endless selective school choice expansion, vanity projects and short term incentives.

Exploring the GE2017 Manifestos: LGBTQIA+ Rights

One of the key election areas that really matters to me is that of improving LGBTQIA+ rights in the UK. Too often, when we consider the positive or negative impact on policies on LGBT people, we forget that non-binary, genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, intersex and asexual rights lag far behind those of LGBT people. I'm looking for a progressive, positive, inclusive approach from the mainstream parties towards improving rights across the board, and I feel that the manifesto pledges fall a bit short in achieving this. I guess this might be because I'm a massive fan of the Greens approach to LGBTQIA+ rights and their manifesto is truly radical and bold (you can view my analysis of the Green LGBTQIA+ manifesto here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/a-bold-wide-ranging-lgbtqia-manifesto.html).

Nonetheless, there are policies and pledges that are worth exploring and analysing:

Labour:

• Teachers would be given specific training on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools.
• New Sex and Relationships Education guidance would be issued that would be LGBT inclusive (but no mention of queer,intersex and asexual lesson plan guidance).
• Labour would make LGBT hate crime an "aggravated offence".
• Labour would ensure that mental health service cuts would be reversed to help LGBT service users (no idea how they'd improve accessibility to those services).
• Labour pledges to ensure that frontline healthcare professionals receive ongoing training so that they can better understand and meet the needs of LGBT service users (what about intersex service users?). 
• Labour will allow the PrEP trial to be concluded in England (and ensure it is concluded ASAP) and then roll out the treatment to all high-risk groups in the hope that it reduces HIV infection rates.
• Labour would amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 and the Equality Act (EA) 2010 by changing the protected characteristic from "Gender Reassignment Surgery" to "Gender Identity" and remove outdated terminology such as "transsexual" (some trans people refer to themselves as transsexual to separate themselves from the transgender label because they want to be recognised differently because they specifically choose to medically transition).
• Labour would appoint "dedicated global ambassadors" for LGBT rights.

Lib Dems:

• The Lib Dems would review SRE in schools, with lessons on consent and LGBT+ relationships (no idea yet as to whether intersex and asexual issues would be discussed in SRE lessons).
• Companies with 250+ employees would be mandated to publish data on LGBT+ employees.
• There would be a push to extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes in the public sector and try and get private sector businesses to adopt the practice.
• The Lib Dems would ask the Advisory Committee on Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs to review the Blood Donation rules for men who have sex with men.
• The Lib Dems would introduce an "X option on passports, identity documents and official forms" for non-binary, gender-fluid and agender people and campaign to extend the X option across the board, including private sector documents (e.g. utility bills).
• The EA protected characteristic would change (like Labour) and the GA would be "streamlined", so that people can change their legal gender without "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles".
• The Lib Dems specifically vow to remove the spousal veto from the GA "and abolish any remaining marriage inequalities in areas such as pensions, hospital visitation rights (e.g. whether a trans person would be treated in a ward which corresponds to their acquired gender) and custody of children in the event of bereavement". 
• The Lib Dems will oppose any attempt to "water down" the Human Rights Act 1998 or remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights. 
• The Lib Dems would ensure that trans prisoners are put in prisons that reflect their acquired gender identity. 
• The Lib Dems would offer asylum to LGBT+ people fleeing persecution, possible imprisonment, torture or execution on the basis of their gender identification or sexuality and stop them from being deported back to those countries in the future. Detention limits would be put at 28 days and processing times for asylum applications would be speeded up. 
• LGBT+ mental health services would receive guaranteed funding under a Lib Dem government.
• PrEP would be made available on the NHS in England as it is already available in Scotland.
• The Lib Dems want to introduce all-LGBT+ parliamentary shortlists in the future.
• The Lib Dems commit to increase efforts to try and "decriminalise homosexuality around the world and advance the cause of LGBT+ rights".

Conservatives:

• The Conservatives have pledged to tackling hate crime that is committed on the basis of "transgender identity" (I'd have written gender identity and expression).
• The Conservatives would not remove the UK from the ECHR for the duration of the next Parliament and would not make any legislative changes to the HRA (which enshrined the ECHR into UK Law) until the Brexit process has been concluded.

Thoughts: 

At first glance, it's abundantly clear that Labour and the Lib Dems believe that LGBT+ rights do need to be improved in the UK and they are not ashamed to discuss policies to achieve this directly in their manifestos. I have tweeted and chatted to LGBT people who identify as right-wing though who argue that LGBT+ rights have already improved in the UK and that it's better to focus on policies to improve rights more generally. That being said, most I have tweeted are more concerned about getting the Brexit deal concluded than improving the rights of people in the LGBT+ community who may face barriers different from themselves (e.g. if a trans domestic violence survivor is finding it difficult to access domestic violence and abuse services because there are no LGBT+ services in their local area). What is in the Conservative manifesto is very basic; as a minimum I'd expect a commitment to tackling trans hate crime and not destroying the HRA. What many on the Brexit loving right do not always understand is that being a signatory of the ECHR and being able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights allowed LGBT+ rights to develop across the UK, including allowing openly gay people to service with pride in our wonderful Armed Forces and legalising homosexuality in Northern Ireland (shame same-sex marriage isn't legal yet!)

The manifesto pledges by Labour and the Lib Dems do seem similar, especially in relation to providing SRE guidance for schools, ensuring that LGBT+ mental services are fully funded and providing PrEP on the NHS in England ASAP. The Conservatives have made a commitment to increase mental health funding, with an extra £1bn pledged by 2020/21 and they did mention the need to have mental health first aid training in schools that could help LGBT+ students directly (the Lib Dems and Labour both agree with this policy and mention it directly in their own manifestos). There's also a pledge from both Labour and the Lib Dems to tackle LGBT homelessness. The Albert Kennedy Trust carried out a study  that up to a 1/4 of LGBT young people are homeless in the UK (http://www.akt.org.uk/webtop/modules/_repository/documents/AlbertKennedy_researchreport_FINALinteractive.pdf) and removing the Housing Benefit for 18-21 year olds is going to have a negative impact on them if local councils try to deny access to the benefit to them (although the Conservatives have promised that Housing Benefit would remain available to those who "desperately need" it).  

I'm pleased to see Labour specifically commit to provide funding for training for teachers on how to deal with homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying. It's alright to allow equality organisations such as Stonewall to bring in diversity champions to talk about HBT bullying to students but teachers need to be able to have strategies in place to confront and challenge the bullies and hopefully change their mind towards acceptance and that takes more than a day visit to achieve. The information that needs to be disseminated to teachers is more technical and complex than the information relayed to secondary school students.

An amazing commitment made by the Lib Dems is to specifically help LGBT+ asylum seekers by offering them a guaranteed place of safety in the UK. If a person is fleeing for their life because they fear they could be murdered because they are openly trans, then I believe we as an open and tolerant country should allow them to come here and be able to live a life that's more secure. We should never deport a trans person who would still be at risk of persecution and we should do everything we can to help them adjust to life in the UK. For the Lib Dems, this means allowing "working age" asylum seekers to look for work if they've waited for more than 6 months for their application to be processed, rather than expecting them to have to subsist on benefits. Giving asylum seekers a chance to gain employment to support themselves in the UK is a positive step forward. 

There is of course the issue of closing LGBT+ venues across the UK that some feel needs to be addressed. According to The Gay UK, 100 gay bars alone have closed in London alone since 2000. Now, I'm not sure whether incentives can be put in place to increase the number of gay bars in the UK so that LGBT people have more safe places to go, but Labour have pledged to "set up a national review of local pubs" that's to get to the bottom of why so many have closed and create a taskforce to look into proposing sustainability measures to stop the declining trend. Of course, it may just be the case that because LGBT people are becoming more accepted by mainstream society, they can go into pubs and bars that aren't LGBT focussed without fear of harassment, bullying or being violently attacked. As activists have pointed out, there is still a long way to go to make the UK streets truly safe for LGBT people and also the fact that LGBT venues allow people to meet and discuss and date. 

Whilst the Conservatives mentioned LGBT rights 0 times in the manifesto (let alone queer, intersex and asexual rights) PM May did take part in a Q&A with PinkNews to answer questions put to her by LGBT readers (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/18/qa-prime-minister-theresa-may-answers-all-your-lgbt-questions-ahead-of-the-general-election/) and in the interests of fairness it's important to highlight the pledges PM May herself made during the interview, including:

• Providing LGBT+ guidance to make SRE lessons inclusive (despite the fact that the Tories voted down an amendment to legislation that would have made LGBT+ inclusive SRE mandatory in all schools and I believe it should be)
• Not forcing Northern Ireland to make same-sex marriage legal (because she says it is a devolved issue yet she know full well the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) oppose same-sex marriage and vetoed it whilst in government)
• Raising the issue of LGBT+ rights with the Russian government (I've not heard the Tories being vocal on this) and supporting calls for a "thorough and independent investigation to take place" examining human rights abuses against LGBT+ people in Chechnya
• Reviewing the GRA, including moving the system away from "medical checks"
• Signing up the European Convention on Human Rights for another 5 years (which was in the manifesto) and promising the "commitment to equality for LGBT people is unequivocal and will not change" as the UK exits the EU
• Carrying on with the large-scale PrEP trial in England with £10m allocated over the next 3 years for it (but Labour wants to see the PrEP trial conclude ASAP)
• Make possible changes to passports and legal gender identity but only after conducting a review of gender requirements on government forms and passports (which is part of the Transgender Action Plan)
• Maintain the memorandum of understanding between therapists and NHS England to condemn gay cure therapy (but not commit to making it illegal)
• Encourage local authorities to work with the Albert Kennedy Trust to reduce LGBT homelessness
• Continue "hosting representatives of LGBT groups and Pride organisers from around the UK at Downing Street".

The question I have for the Conservatives is: why didn't they feel confident enough to mention the review of the GRA in their manifesto? Were they afraid of upsetting potential older Tory voters who may be transphobic or could they not be bothered to mention it? It sends out a very negative message to floating voters who may be active in the fight for LGBT+ rights. Equally, there was no commitment made by PM May to implement the Trans Inquiry Recommendations in full which is disappointing considering Nicky Morgan and the Women and Equalities Committee Chair Maria Miller, both Conservatives, made those recommendations to David Cameron in 2016. 

Another issue that will need to be addressed in time for the next General Election is access of trans people to the voting process. Currently there are a number of trans people who have reported that they were unable to register to vote because their National Insurance number hasn't been updated to reflect their change in gender identity; apparently you need to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to prove legally you have changed gender before your NI number can be used. However, no guidance can be offered to local authorities on this by the Electoral Commission, meaning that socially transitioned voters feel locked out of the system: (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/21/trans-voters-are-being-blocked-from-registering-in-the-uk/). Perhaps a change in the GRA will allow for these discrepancies to be ironed out and allow for easier GRC obtention.