I note that David Cameron pledged to make this government the greenest ever. I also note that he has wholly failed to keep his promises. What is needed is not empty promises, but statutes which take seriously the fact that positive action for the preservation of the environment is not a hippy ambition but is necessary for the safeguarding of all people, now and in the future, with profound impacts on a great many other areas, not least the economy.
All legislation shall be subject to environmental review. If such reviews find that proposed legislation is not environmentally sustainable or does not mitigate to the maximum extent any potential harm, then it shall be rejected.
There will be no more investment into building new power stations that rely on fossil fuels. The only expenditure on them will be on safety.
Instead, investment will be made into renewable energies including, but not limited to, wind and wave power.
Such renewables may plug a gap left by the winding down of fossil fuels, but are not an answer to all our energy needs. So there should be funding into a new nuclear fission powered station, at a location yet to be determined.
Further to this, though, there should be additional funds made available to research into nuclear fusion as this is the cleanest, most fruitful potential source of energy available, but whose long-term feasibility remains a task that engineering has not yet conquered.
Recent years have seen annual floods in many parts of the country. This has partly been brought about by environmental change, but has been exacerbated by poor flood planning. I would propose a moratorium on building on flood plains. While there is a great need for new homes, not least in the form of social housing, these need to be built in areas where risks from flooding are minimal. There should also be additional funds directed to improving the flood defences in the areas that are routinely and severely hit.
Full employment is an ideal that should be aimed for but which should be acknowledged as unrealistic. Instead, there should be a recognition that there will likely be friction in the job market, but that the more realistic aim should be to keep unemployment to under 2 months per person.
Aiming for a total unemployment rate has less meaning than actually trying to get people into employment. So any unemployment statistics should be tiered to show the number who have been unemployed for less than 2 months, between 2 and 6 months, 6-12 months and over 12 months.
I have laid out before a measure to encourage companies to take on unemployed people before, so I would reiterate that policy.
No person should work for nothing. So work experience will have to become a form of paid employment. Zero-hours contracts should be outlawed as will the current Workfare programme.
Some additional measures are outlined in the Company Law section later in this manifesto.
At present, the inflation measures that we use, RPI and CPI are artificially low. The reason is that they omit the very important factor of house price inflation. The RPI contains the increase in mortgage repayments, but if the interest rates are kept low (as a result of the current flawed inflation measures) then the RPI records a low inflation rate.
Instead, we should either amend the current measures or introduce a third which incorporates the rate of house price inflation. This would ensure the issue is taken more seriously than it currently is. There are currently some who are advocates of not increasing interest rates. When such people are put in charge of interest rates, then we get the divide that results in in house price inflation being up to 10 times what the RPI is in some locations.
It is my opinion that this is not good for long term economics and that it has fuelled the current housing bubble. Once we get a more realistic figure to use for inflation, then interest rates are almost certain to rise. While this will increase the cost of borrowing, this is necessary adjustment to correct some inequalities in our economy. Any further references to inflation should be taken to mean this improved measure which takes into account house price inflation.
Public transport is currently among the most expensive in Europe.
Train fares may be increased annually at a rate no more than inflation. This will not only apply in aggregate but will also apply to any given railfare anywhere in the country. So train companies will be prevented from increasing some fares by a little and some by extortionate amounts.
Rural bus services are also in need of improvement, so I would propose additional funding after a wholesale review has taken place, which should last no more than 2 years.
One of the major issues that is discussed in the construction of HS2, the high speed railway line. As yet, I am undecided on this issue, so offer no proposal either for or against it.
To reiterate a point made earlier, all legislation should be subject to an environmental review. Transport is one area that will be highly affected by this, not least when discussing airport capacity.
For any airline that operates at any UK airport, they will be required to engage in a carbon-offsetting programme to counteract the carbon dioxide emissions they make on all flights into and out of the UK, as well as internal flights. Airlines will be prohibited from passing on the cost of such an offset onto their passenger airfairs.
The current coalition government has embarked upon a dangerous crusade, based on a flawed ideology that market forces are the best way to ensure effective healthcare. As such, it should be the priority of an incoming government to repeal the Health and Social Care Bill.
The highest priority in the provision of front line services must be the wellbeing of the patient. Any would-be provider of such services should not be compromised by concerns over profitability, as this detracts from the highest priority. Therefore no provider of front line services may operate on a for-profit service. Any measures taken to privatise the NHS must be repealed and any care currently in private hands must be phased back into public hands over the course of the next parliament.
For any company that provides goods or services to the NHS (i.e. not front line service), the taxation on their profits should be ringfenced and directed straight back into the NHS. The reason for this is that healthcare should be prioritised over profits. So while it may be necessary for a company to generate profits to allow future investment, they should not be excessive, at the expense of the NHS.
Let’s give an example. Let’s say a company generates revenue of £30m, of which £20m is derived from the NHS. They make sufficient profits to warrant paying £3m of tax. While this tax would normally go into a central pot from the NHS would take part, 2/3rds of it should be directed straight into the NHS, with the other £1m going to the general pot.