Thanks for taking part
It’s been in interesting discussion – which continues below the line. Thank you for getting involved and setting the tone of the debate, we’ve enjoyed hearing from many of you and indeed putting your questions to our writers.
We are hoping to run another similar debate this time next week on another theme from electionland: by then we’ll be just a dozen days from going to the polls ... hold on to your hats. You can let us know what sort of questions you’d like us to answer via our callout, here.
And, if you are eligible, make sure you are registered to vote – you’ve got three days left. See you next time!
Updated
'The so-called "Brexit election" has contained very little actual debate about Brexit"
Here’s a few points from dezilo (click the link to read the full comment):
Love it or loathe it, this manifesto is at least an honest attempt (however imperfect) to puncture the sail of the erroneous belief by Corbyn, comrades and sympathisers that one is entitled to free giveaways by other individuals who are never acknowledged for their contribution to society.
This is a government in waiting that recognises the need to build a nation for everyone, where no one is a victim but active participants in the nation state.
A government committed to effecting the will of the British people on Brexit and not undermine it. These are the reasons why the Conservative and Unionist Party will form the next government with a massive majority come 8 June.
'Does May have any intention of actually pursuing this immigration promise?'
Here’s a question from RipoffRiposte:
Do you think that under-funding education and committing to lower immigration at the same time is irresponsible, and if so how irresponsible and in what ways?
Is the Labour plan of investing in education at all levels the better long-term bet for reducing immigration (as we’ll have the skilled doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. that we need locally)? Relatedly, do you think Mrs May has any intention of actually pursuing this immigration promise this time around?
Guardian staff I don't think there's much doubt that May means what she says about immigration. The remarkable thing is that none of the people in her own party or in the Treasury who can see the political and economic folly have managed to communicate it too her in a persuasive way. (Political hazard being that you promise something undeliverable and thereby stoke all the anger that your policy is meant to appease.)
The Mayites seem to believe that limiting immigration means the demand for workers is met by "home-grown" workers - which is good for employment, community relations and general well-being all round. But as you say, the missing element is skills - and even with the necessary funding, there is a time lag between vacancies being available and training people up to fill them.
I imagine a lot of people - left and right - would support the idea of investment in Britain's workforce, and a lot of people who object to the importing of cheap labour if it means undermining wages and conditions. But there does need to be a lot more honesty than you get from May about how you would manage the transition from an ultra-liberal globalised labour market to a more protected one without slowing down investment and job creation.
Also, I'd guess one likely consequence of a clumsy and ill-thought-through clampdown on legal migration is a rise in illegal migration.
Updated
There’s a not a great deal of time left for your questions, but you can continue to discuss the points raised in the comments after we bring things above the line to a close shortly. Stay tuned and we’ll hope to get a couple more of your questions answered, though.
Updated
Reader feliciafarrel has been reading Polly Toynbee’s responses and has this to say in the comments:
Polly mentions that she likes May’s brave move to start taking some of the wealth created by house price inflation (as I do), would you go further Polly and also agree that a large hike in IHT is necessary?
And moreover would you agree with me that, in contrast to Corbyn’s proposals to increase ‘in life’ taxes, ‘end of life’ taxes are a far more sensible way to proceed as they don’t stifle young people’s aspirations, and they take the wealth from people reaching the end of their lives who don’t need it any more?
Ellie Mae O’Hagan in the Guardian made a rare ATL venture into suggesting a huge increase in Inheritance Tax. And frankly, in my view, that is the only way to begin addressing the cancer in our system that is exponential cumulative concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
Guardian staff Polly's headed off (I think) but I agree that IHT is a social good. It's interesting that in America there is a much more articulate tradition of arguing in favour of IHT, which is backed by, among others Bill Gates Sr and Warren Buffett. They argue that the US republic was established in order not to have an aristocracy of inherited wealth on the British model, and that abolishing IHTs creates such an aristocracy. British politicians are just scared of it, most of the time. Maybe someone should persuade Prince Charles to take this up.
Rafael also has an answer to that earlier question on fully costed – or not – manifestos.
Guardian staff I think the short answer to the first question is that the Tories are getting away with murder on uncosted manifesto partly because so much of the press is giving May a free pass but also because the incumbent governing party carries a kind of authority and credibility (justified or not) that oppositions have to work harder to earn.
It is a bit absurd but the reality is that "looking Prime Ministerial" and "being credible on the economy" tend to be functions of being the actual Prime Minister and running the economy. Rarely an opposition leader can overcome that with sheer charisma, but more often a sitting government cocks things up so badly that the alternative gains the necessary authority by default.
Now it is possible that May's (mis)handling of Brexit will put us into that space, but I don't think we are there yet.
'Why is a “fully costed manifesto” seen as being important for Labour but not the Conservatives?
Martin Kettle joins us to answer questions raised by YorkerBouncer in the comments:
Why is a “fully costed manifesto” seen as being important for Labour but not the Conservatives? And how can anyone claim whether any manifesto in this election is costed or otherwise when nobody is prepared to reveal the cost of Brexit?
Guardian staff The Brexit point is unanswerable in one sense. The costs and savings etc of Brexit are unknowable at this stage. That's not so much because no one is prepared to reveal the costs as that no one really knows them yet. The whole thing is one hypothetical possibility piled on another, and no one can predict the future. I think the costs/benefits of Brexit is what the 2022 election will all be about, rather than this one. Having said which, Labour isn't interested in pursuing this subject very much, and the Conservatives have a policy of not talking about it either, for different reasons. The Lib Dems haven't focused their message on costs either, come to that.
The wider point about costing a manifesto is a very good one too. Basically, a manifesto needs to be costed if voters need convincing that the manifesto is economically credible. That's always a problem for Labour because they tend not to be given the benefit of the doubt on economic competence in the way that the Conservatives are. Ken Clarke said today that he didn't think manifestos should be costed, which is fine if you are a Tory but not so easy if you are Labour. And anyway, no one can foretell the future outturn of the economy. My heart's with Clarke on this, but my head says Labour has to do decent costings. I suppose if you are Franklin Roosevelt you can get away with saying "This is our plan, and if it doesn't work we'll try something else, and you know you can trust us to get it right in the end. Unfortunately there aren't many political leaders with that kind of confidence inspiring momentum.
A reader going by ed ed below the line pulls out a detail:
On page 43 of the manifesto it says: “We will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.”
I don’t think I’ve seen any discussion of the implications, if any, of this if the repeal actually occurs.
Guardian staff Yes, that is an intriguing detail. The chief outcome, as far as I can tell, is the restoration of a very powerful tool to the PM. Cameron agreed to surrender control of the election timetable (i.e. licence to dissolve, via the Royal Prerogative) only because the Lib Dems were afraid that he would suddenly pull the rug on coalition and grab a majority. As it turned out he got one after 5 years anyway ...
But the restoration of flexible parliaments will change the dynamic for the opposition as well. The prospect of a fixed 5 year stint stretching out ahead is psychologically traumatic for the losing side in a general election. It makes life very hard for the opposition leader who has to think strategically about how to build towards a campaign the date of which is set so far in advance.
One very geeky constitutional point: no-one knows for sure what happens to a royal prerogative that has been scrapped when the law that scrapped it is repealed. Does it just ping back into place, as if by magic, or do you need legislation to put it back? It would be a very weird thing for MPs to do in the 21st Century, to pass a law actively giving the monarch a power to dissolve parliament. But the alternative is making it explicit that it is really the PM's power - and that would look even worse. It would be a massive constitutional shift to No10 ..
That’s all from Polly for now, but Rafael Behr and Martin Kettle are back with us and we’ll be highlighting some of their responses below the line shortly.
'To call it a 'death tax' is incorrect'
Two similar points to be discussed here – the first from John Nash:
May’s manifesto addresses the care issue by unlocking mountains of capital tied up in house values. Is this necessarily a bad thing just because its comes from Theresa May?
And Lynda Duffy adds:
The Manifesto may not be “populist” but raising the threshold to £100k, thereby preserving a reasonable estate to be passed on and asking people who can, to contribute to any care costs is, in my opinion, a sound and honest attempt to level the financial playing field.
No one will have to leave their home in their lifetime. To call it a “death tax” is not only thoroughly objectionable but incorrect. There are many older people who are sitting on large amounts of unused equity in their property’s who do not need welfare payments such as heating allowance, those that do will be better provided for if it was means tested.
On the “death tax” social care question – I heartily agree. Theresa May is quite right to take the money from the unearned wealth the older generation - myself included - have acquired through no effort or talent via absurd and dangerous house price booms. I wrote about this in response to the Tory manifesto here.
They are quite wrong to cut inheritance tax – though this is a back door way of restoring some of that error. But how the social care costs are spread fairly between those with high costs and those with none is something she should consider again. But Lynda, when it comes to the NHS, which you also say in part of your email “cannot be expected to provide all and sundry, people have to be educated to take more responsibility for their own physical and mental health” – once you start to unpick the universal free service, it will fall apart, never to be regained. Those who fail to look after themselves are often poorer, sicker, and have mental health problems. Once you try to decide whether this reckless young motorcyclist, that crazy pot-holer, that food-addicted obesity patient, or heroin addict don’t deserve free treatment because they brought misfortune on themselves, which of us would escape blame for something or other? Some are born with strong characters, others not so much. Don’t go there!
Updated
Polly is also reading your comments. A reader known (below the line, at least) as hubbahubba asks:
Is May’s risk of alienating the true blue Tories to try and garner disillusioned Labour voters a risk worth taking?
I don’t think she takes any risk at all! Risk is not in her nature. The right has nowhere else to go, UKIP has collapsed, eaten up by her hard Brexiting. My fear is the opposite: she will be driven by all those hard Brexiters, instead of striking the best available deal.
'Could we have an intelligent, empathetic and thoughtful leader?'
Here’s another question from a reader received via email:
Do you think it’s possible that all these people lauding “strong” leadership might be reminded that strong leaders have caused as much havoc in the past as weak leaders? Could we have an intelligent, empathetic and thoughtful leader now we’ve taken the catastrophic Brexit decision?
I agree! There is something repellent about all this strong and stable leadership obsession. But sadly, since opinion polls began, voters look for their idea of “strength” or at least for the “strongest” on offer at election time. I fear greatly that this “strong” leader is just adamant, obstinate, inflexible, and rigid when what these fiendish Brexit negotiations will need is warmth, empathy, agility, cunning, flexibility, charm and persuasiveness. May has none of that. Bull-dozing is not way to go.
Before we got a chance to pore over the details of the Conservative manifesto, we offered readers who leaned towards voting Tory to tell us what policies they’d have liked to see. You can see how they matched up to the reality Theresa May promises here.
And in case you missed them, we also undertook a similar exercise ahead of the official Lib Dem and Labour announcements earlier in the week (the latter also debated in this space last Friday).
Among the points Maddy Knibb raises via email was this:
We have a relatively high level of children whose diets are poor and abandoning free school meals for the youngest is perverse and short-sighted. But there’s money for grammar schools and free schools...
I admit, I’m two minds about this, as about other universal benefits. I have young grandchildren getting free school meals, which eases the family budget, at a time when young families need help and get less and less. But frankly, from where we are, with wicked cuts to tax credits, universal credit, children benefit, disability benefits, very little of which Labour is planning to restore, I think I would direct every penny of spending towards families and others who need it most. That goes for university tuition fees too, I’m afraid. I feel a surge of warmth for the idea that the state provides cradle to grave for all. But in these cruel times, with soaring food bank use, those are the people who should come first right now.
Maddy also asks:
How is a tax on companies bringing in talented staff a good policy? Training young people in, say, a startup tech company would be enhanced by good, experienced people coming for a few years and sharing knowledge.
We have to be eagle eyed to ensure every penny collected through this migration levy is re-directed to the right kind of training – including the sort of tech start-up you suggest. Given the ferocity of opinion about immigration, it seems to me a good way to persuade people there is value in importing skilled people, for the benefit of companies and the economy – with this added payback towards apprenticeships and training for our badly under-skilled people.
'When did we decide this was the time to give up our collective responsibility for elderly care?'
We also want to highlight some of the discussion you are having below the line, and were interested in this exchange.
When did we as a society decide this was the right time to give up our collective responsibility of taking care of our elderly. It would appear that this same generation, that is now seen as a burden, were themselves compassionate enough to think about our future and provide us with a NHS so that we would be taken care of. When did we decide that we cannot afford this when those in the 1940's with all their hardships were unable to utter these words. We need to wake up and start caring rather than using creative words to excuse ourselves. When did we become so cool that we decided a leader spoke the right words but just wasn't media cool. Show your compassion and stand up for those who need you .
Here’s a fellow reader’s response:
'When did we as a society decide this was the right time to give up our collective responsibility of taking care of our elderly.
It was when Thatcher declared that there was no such thing as society and it was everyone for themselves.
Certainly an endemic mentality in the country today where 'get rich or die trying' is now the norm. You only have to consider the prevalence of online fraud, bogus builders, crash-for-cash etc.to realise that many people do not give a damn about the suffering they cause in order to obtain a quick buck. You only have to consider why so many criminal gangs have sought residence to see how exposed we have become to this.
Thatcherism is now rife in the UK and unfortunately the electorate seem quite content for it to continue.
You can click on the links on any of the comments here to jump straight to the discussion and get involved.
'People just cross their fingers and hope they will drop dead without needing care'
Polly also has a response to the issue of elderly care raised by many of you below the line and discussed by Rafael, earlier.
The driving of elderly people towards taking out annuities to pay for care is likely to be lucrative for the insurance sector but worrying for families. Dilnot had it right.
Interestingly, the insurance industry has shown no enthusiasm for this market. There are care insurance products for those who want one, but they are expensive as someone might live for 10 years in a care home. But the real factor is that people will not save or think about care costs.
Although everyone knows they will retire some day, it’s so hard to get them to consider pensions that this has become almost mandatory through auto-enrolment. People just cross their fingers and hope they will drop dead without needing care. Perhaps rightly, they are more likely to save for other things, or put any extra into helping their kids with a deposit. A compulsory paying in on retirement, as I suggest in my column today, is the best way for all to pool risk, and insure against losing everything to care costs.
Updated
We’d also like to highlight this ongoing project to source questions and learn a little more about what you want to know about the election.
So as well as getting involved in the discussion below, you can also add your question via the form in the link. We’ll put some of the most interesting to some of our writers, and use some of the themes that develop to inform our coverage more generally.
'How do we get the environment and catastrophic climate change onto the agenda of the parties'
Via email, Teresa Belton asks:
Why is the looming environmental crisis not included as one of five great challenges facing the country? Does the Tory party not consider the many destructive impacts of climate change (crop failure, flooding, heatwaves, high winds, health effects, water shortage, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, etc) to be issues to be urgently addressed – even for the sake of the
economy?
I worry about this. How do we get the environment and catastrophic climate change onto the real agenda of the parties, not just as token nod, an afterthought?
The problem seems to be that it is so big, so global, so permanent, so frightening that politicians can only think about it now and then, glancingly. We commentators too find it difficult to write about every week, in every column – which we should if we wrote according to the importance of the topic. But that means saying the same thing over and over – so, as today, I write about interesting changes to paying for social care, a minuscule issue in comparison. George Monbiot is the hero, for never letting go, and finding new ways to write it, and renewed outrage.
Updated
Back to the comments, a question from CaptainGrey:
Has the vacuum in the middle caused by Labour’s lurch to the hard left made difficult decisions easier for the Tories to implement? I am thinking particularly of relaxing the pension triple lock (which was becoming more unaffordable year-on-year) and introducing the housing tax to pay for social care, neither of which would be considered had the race been tight.
Guardian staff Terminology of "hard" or other kinds of left aside - that argument goes round-and-round forever - I don't think there's much doubt that the state of the opposition has bought May the space to do things that Cameron/Osborne would like to have done but felt unable to confront - means testing winter fuel and loosening triple lock among them.
Also, crucially, Labour's position on fiscal policy gives May room to be very vague on tax. It will go up after the election. (It nearly always does in first budget of a new parliament, regardless of who is in govt.)
It may feel desperately unfair for Labour that they get attacked for proposing things in opposition that Tories then go and do in govt (the energy price cap, for example) but until Corbyn or a successor develops a workable strategy for restoring confidence in the party as broadly competent and reliable stewards of the country, that dynamic doesn't look likely to change. And yes, I know the Tories might not *deserve* their reputation - but again, what is opposition strategy for landing that attack?
We’ve also been collecting some questions from Guardian Members via email. Martin Perrie asks:
Is there room in British politics today for a centre right, economically liberal point of view? I mean the view of the FT, the Economist, and probably orange book Lib Dems and the George Osborne part of the Tories.
Elections are strange times, when parties dress up in one another’s clothes. Theresa May bids to be a new kind of Conservative – or possibly a throw-back to a more decent Macmillanite type. But in the end, by their budgets we shall know them. May could well be the sort of centre-right you suggest. She has relaxed the deficit timetable, but the same austerity agenda grips her that had Osborne cutting and cutting savagely.
'Is May is shooting to become a Poundland Angela Merkel?'
First up Rafael Behr joins us in the comments, in response to a reader going by BrokenLogic, who asks:
For me [the manifesto] seems positioned within the European tradition of Christian Democracy. May is shooting to become a Poundland Angela. I think that’s a tone about which a national consensus could be built. And I like that there is a real attempt to win a mandate to find solutions to some big issues that will almost inevitably be unpopular (which is not to say I agree they are the right solutions).
But that doesn’t go as far as attempting to get to grips with what the reality of Brexit is likely to be or the massive dependence of the British economy on immigration. It can afford some truth-telling to the electorate, but not it seems to the Tory party membership.
Guardian staff Poundland Angela is very good. I do think it is a shame that a kind of alliance of temperament and political outlook between the PM and the German Chancellor is theoretically available - which would be good for Britain and Europe - but the fact of Brexit and the crass way May has approached it snuffed out the possibility.
I think one of the tragedies of May's time in Downing Street might turn out to be that she thought she could spend her political capital (ie her capacity to annoy the Tory right) doing things other than Brexit (all the soft, market intervention stuff) - and so will have to compensate the Mail /Con grassroots with the Euro-bashing. And that process means she won't achieve any of the other things she has said she wants to do. She seems to think Brexit is just a background noise to some other agenda. In reality, it is the only thing on her agenda.
Our writers are joining us below the line now – we’ll be posting some of the answers to your questions, and interesting debate points from you, in this space. Get involved in the comments!
Post your questions now
The Conservative party launched its election manifesto on Thursday, with Theresa May setting out her party’s ambitions at an event in West Yorkshire.
The prime minister said she was presenting a “new contract between government and people” and some commentators suggested this was a clear attempt to break with past Tory thinking and to “redefine modern Conservatism”.
But others voiced alarm over proposals on social care and a refashioned “death tax” – with Jeremy Corbyn saying the party was “ditching pensioners”.
What do you think? Join Guardian writers Polly Toynbee, Rafael Behr and Martin Kettle to discuss the key points and debate some of the policy promises and what they may mean for voters on Friday between 11am and 1pm (BST).
It is striking that the so-called "Brexit election" has so far contained very little actual debate about Brexit at all. There are many reasons for this: they include May's demand for a broad mandate not a detailed one, and Labour's fear of challenging on the issue for fear of being accused of remoaning. As a result, though, I increasingly think that the 2017 election can be seen as an election about the referendum rather than about Brexit terms. It's as though the election is necessary in order to bolt down the referendum vote within the parliamentary electoral system. Many pro-Europeans, like me, find this frustrating, but I think we ought to recognise that this is what is happening. The upside of all this, though, is that post-election politics will in fact be dominated by the Brexit terms - and the 2022 election (or perhaps even a 2020 or 2021 election) will be very fundamentally about the kind of relationship we want with the EU. If I am being optimistic, I think that one of the paradoxes of the Brexit vote is that Britain appears to be about to elect a Tory government that is strikingly Christian Democratic in outlook, on the European model. As we leave the EU, so we may in fact become more "European". If that's true - and I make no predictions at all - it could see the UK become a kind of EU fellow-traveller from outside the EU. This wouldn't be the worst of all outcomes for Britain.