Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
I won't lie: election manifestos have a tendency to scare me somewhat. So much paper, so many words, so much rhetoric – and in the Tories’ case this year: so many pictures. But, I read them comprehensively nonetheless – or at least, the education and transport sections.
With regards to students, education policy-wise (and specifically those policies relating to Higher Education) the Lib Dems are sticking to their support of the abolition of tuition fees (as are the Greens and the BNP), while Labour are sticking firmly to their original position on the subject. The Lib Dems’ HE policies are the clearest, as they state the abolition of tuition fees will only be possible over a 6-year period: it may not be exactly what we want to hear, but at least they’re being honest with us. On the other hand, all main parties want to increase university places, while none of them actually take the time to explain where they are going to get the money or the physical resources to do this.
The Greens are keen for the restoration of living expenses grants for students, which I personally think is a fantastic (if unrealistic) idea, but perhaps the most interesting policy (to me) comes from the Tories, in stating their intent to allow state schools to permit students to take the international exams, such as the IB, that are generally offered in private schools. This idea could help equalise the chances of university admissions, among other things – I, for one, am always annoyed when friends at York speak of their IB qualifications, stressing how much more taxing it is than our A-levels, when I was never given the chance to take it.
Labour have professed their intention to protect schools from spending cuts, and it is assumed this will apply to HE institutions also – something that might be vital in swaying student votes given the recently, well-publicised cuts here at York. But I’m confused – if they’ll be able to afford to stop cutting our funding if they win the election… why did they cut it to start with?
As students, I’m pretty sure transport policies are also incredibly important. Depending on your future job, your university years may be the only time you have the freedom to travel as much as you like. Whether to go from home and the University, to visit friends, or merely to go into Leeds for a night, every student will use the train in their time at York. Every student will therefore also know that there is an awful lot that could do with improving in the British rail system, and it seems all the three main parties, as well as the Greens and the BNP, know it too.
High up in every party's transport policy is some reference to a “high-speed rail network” including London's Crossrail project. Labour give figures as to how much they're going to spend on improving our trains, but it's only the Lib Dems that clearly lay out “how” they intend to pay for such improvements. The Greens also want to subsidise bus and train fares – wanting to cut rail fares by a third. This, however, sounds a little too good to be true. The BNP's statement of a “high-speed, magnetic levitation, inter-city rail network” also sounds a little odd to my ears, a bit sci-fiesque and mildly disturbing; but then, I'm no scientist.
As a member of a proportion of the population known for their cycling, the pledges of the Lib Dems to install more “proper facilities” for cycling (whatever that actually means) is very welcomed by me, as is the Greens support of such, well, “green” measures.
But what about the manifestos themselves?
Out of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems, it was the Tories’ manifesto that looked the most intimidating at 131 pages long. Yet on closer inspection, this turned out to be a bit misleading, given the sheer number of pictures, posters and diagrams included. Labour's was 78 pages long, and the Lib Dems had compressed their thoughts down to 57 pages. I found the Labour manifesto cover most visually striking, but not necessarily for any good reasons. The hideously happy image on the front reminded me strongly of Soviet propaganda art I had looked at in A-level history. A purely stylistic similarity I hope.
In both the shorter manifestos, Labour and the Lib Dems deal first with the economy, and then with public services, putting education at the forefront of their second section. On the other hand, the Tories' education policies are placed further on in their manifesto, coming after the economy, health and the family.
As students and probably first-time voters, it may be easy to say you'll vote Lib Dem (just because that's how everyone you've spoken to may be voting) or Labour (because your parents support them) or Tory (ditto, although with the added bonus of it not being Labour). But remember it is important to read up on what each party is actually saying. Even if you end up reiterating your support for the party you had begun by supporting, at least you will have justified your faith in them. Manifestos are there to be read, even if they can look a little daunting.
If we don’t know a party’s manifesto, how can we ever hold them to account over it?
For further information on the policies of the parties, take a look at the Election 2010 section of the BBC News website, or any of the party websites.
You must log in to submit a comment.
