04-09-2020, 08:36 PM
Just got a few points I would like to raise from the manifesto and things which I feel need to be considered moving forwards.
Firstly, one key point is the funding of the armed services through the scrapping of the nuclear weapons scheme. This personally is a high risk move. We need the deterrent of nuclear weapons in order to help maintain peace and the loss of nuclear weapon abilities completely would be a big loss for our global political standing. In this case I would propose that a reduction in investment into the Trident Nuclear scheme occurs with a small amount of investment occurring only to keep up to date on tech (we don't have to produce more nuclear weapons). We can then use our current nuclear industry as a means to hold nuclear power without actually developing weapons. This has been done successfully by Japan who are seen as a nuclear state without actually owning a nuclear weapon.
In regards to Grammar schools I personally went to a Grammar school and would argue that without that provision I wouldn't have gone University and most probably would have reduced grades at both GCSE and A-Level. Under the current education system Grammar schools are being hit unfairly financially and are struggling to cope especially in my area and I feel this is the wrong approach. Those Grammar schools which still exist should be allowed to continue running and with fair support as they do generally help those who are from less wealthy backgrounds to move upwards (in my experience at least) as shown by the fact I was able to go to University, something my parents didn't even get close to.
In terms of scrapping tuition fees I am ok with that as a policy but it is "gravy" in my opinion. Tuition fees don't really impact anyone as you don't even have to pay them back and they seem like a fuss over nothing. If anyone knows more about them please could you explain why they are seen as important?
In terms of taxation how much money were we planning to give as part of the lump sum given at 25 and would this be realistically economically viable? Also I feel it is dangerous to push too much of the tax burden onto those who are richer in society. So how much of an extra burden would the richest have bearing in mind the top rate at the moment is 40% and there are a good number of people who have moved wealth abroad already showing that the tax rate is perceivably high. If we planned on raising it too much surely we would see an overall reduction in tax due to avoidance from those who can afford to move their money around?
With our affordable housing policy I think it is important we add in the development of greater green spaces/parks/play areas for kids as generally it will be families moving in to these estates. At the moment the only focus is the money that can be made and not on the provisions that need to be in place. This may also help with other aims such as health as kids may be more enticed to play outside if there is actually somewhere they can play without getting in trouble.
Finally, in regards to smaller hospitals I just want to re-state a point I have made before in that one way we could help the NHS as a whole is through greater homogenisation of products/procedures/equipment etc and this policy may be a good way to implement this as we can equip the new hospitals through wholesale purchases which in turn will free up funding for recruitment or other needs the healthcare system has.
Firstly, one key point is the funding of the armed services through the scrapping of the nuclear weapons scheme. This personally is a high risk move. We need the deterrent of nuclear weapons in order to help maintain peace and the loss of nuclear weapon abilities completely would be a big loss for our global political standing. In this case I would propose that a reduction in investment into the Trident Nuclear scheme occurs with a small amount of investment occurring only to keep up to date on tech (we don't have to produce more nuclear weapons). We can then use our current nuclear industry as a means to hold nuclear power without actually developing weapons. This has been done successfully by Japan who are seen as a nuclear state without actually owning a nuclear weapon.
In regards to Grammar schools I personally went to a Grammar school and would argue that without that provision I wouldn't have gone University and most probably would have reduced grades at both GCSE and A-Level. Under the current education system Grammar schools are being hit unfairly financially and are struggling to cope especially in my area and I feel this is the wrong approach. Those Grammar schools which still exist should be allowed to continue running and with fair support as they do generally help those who are from less wealthy backgrounds to move upwards (in my experience at least) as shown by the fact I was able to go to University, something my parents didn't even get close to.
In terms of scrapping tuition fees I am ok with that as a policy but it is "gravy" in my opinion. Tuition fees don't really impact anyone as you don't even have to pay them back and they seem like a fuss over nothing. If anyone knows more about them please could you explain why they are seen as important?
In terms of taxation how much money were we planning to give as part of the lump sum given at 25 and would this be realistically economically viable? Also I feel it is dangerous to push too much of the tax burden onto those who are richer in society. So how much of an extra burden would the richest have bearing in mind the top rate at the moment is 40% and there are a good number of people who have moved wealth abroad already showing that the tax rate is perceivably high. If we planned on raising it too much surely we would see an overall reduction in tax due to avoidance from those who can afford to move their money around?
With our affordable housing policy I think it is important we add in the development of greater green spaces/parks/play areas for kids as generally it will be families moving in to these estates. At the moment the only focus is the money that can be made and not on the provisions that need to be in place. This may also help with other aims such as health as kids may be more enticed to play outside if there is actually somewhere they can play without getting in trouble.
Finally, in regards to smaller hospitals I just want to re-state a point I have made before in that one way we could help the NHS as a whole is through greater homogenisation of products/procedures/equipment etc and this policy may be a good way to implement this as we can equip the new hospitals through wholesale purchases which in turn will free up funding for recruitment or other needs the healthcare system has.