Who will I vote for?

As H.L. Mencken said, "every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods".  It's election day today here in the UK.  Time for all of us to place our bids in the auction!

The last time we voted was in the EU referendum of June 2016, where the question was straightforward: do we want the UK to remain in the EU or leave the EU?  In other words, do we want to continue to be ruled by Brussels or would we rather be ruled by London?  It was a clear and specific binary choice - and a very simple one for me.  More liberty?  Yes, please!  Thankfully, the British public chose to vote leave and we are on our way out - hopefully.

General elections are messy.  We are not faced with a specific binary question.  We have to pick between whole packages of policies and personalities from several different parties.  Invariably, each person will agree with some of the policies of one party and some of the policies of another party.

Choosing between the parties based on their policies is already complicated and difficult - even for people who, like me, have strong ideas about what we want and what the consequences each parties' policies are likely to be.

In my previous four blog posts, I reviewed the BBC's bullet-point summaries of the manifestos of each of the main parties: Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP.  Below is a summary table of the results in each of ten policy areas.  I gave a positive score to any policy that would increase liberty and a negative score to any policy that would decrease liberty.

For this scorecard to mean anything, I have to assume that 1) the manifestos of the parties actually reflect their policy intentions, without omission, and 2) the BBC bullet-point summaries are an accurate reflection of the manifestos.  I have my doubts about both of these.  For example, Labour's proposed "land value tax" which would replace "council tax" but significantly increase how much tax we all have to pay, does not make it into the BBC's summary.  Nor do the worrying Conservative policies around internet and free speech regulation.

Nevertheless, I will assume the scores above are broadly representative of which parties will increase or decrease liberty.  Clearly, I won't be voting for Labour or the LibDems.  Their policies on Brexit alone make it impossible for me to vote for them.  On top of that, Labour in particular are led by Marxists and would be an economic disaster for the country.

UKIP scored higher than the Conservatives.  UKIP are often described as a libertarian-lite wing of the Conservative Party, so this makes sense.  Should I vote UKIP then?  Not so fast...

Just because a particular party wins does not mean their policies will be implemented.  As well as deciding based on policies, we also have to decide based on trust.  Can we trust the parties and their leaders to stick to their words?  Indeed, for many people, this is the only factor they will consider; I have seen people say they will vote Labour purely on the basis that they think Jeremy Corbyn is more likeable or trustworthy than Theresa May.  Personally, I do not trust any of them at all, so this is not a factor in my decision.

Then there is the question of "tactical voting".  In reality, there is no way either the LibDems or UKIP will win.  The logic of first-past-the-post makes it almost impossible for any party other than the biggest two to have a chance of taking power.  Some candidates of the LibDems (and other parties like the Greens) have told their voters to vote Labour so as not to split the left-wing vote and end up with a Conservative victory.  The Communist Party aren't even running candidates this year; they have officially endorsed Labour.  Some UKIP candidates have done similar, telling their voters to pick the Conservatives to keep Labour out.  Many Brexiteers, even die-hard UKIP supporters, are saying they will vote tactically for the Conservatives to keep Brexit on track.  It is sad that tactical voting happens, but it is inevitable in a first-past-the-post system and you cannot argue with the logic.

Related to the "tactical voting" debate is the issue of "safe seats".  We do not vote as an entire country, but we vote district-by-district for our local MP.  In some districts, the incumbent has such a large majority that there is no chance the seat will change hands.  In these seats, there is no point in voting tactically.

Indeed, the chance that one vote will change the result in any district are practically zero.

So what is a libertarian to do?  In my district, the Conservatives have a majority, but not so large to make it a safe seat.  There is a chance that it may swing to Labour.  No other party has any chance of winning it.  The Libertarian Party has no candidate in my district (otherwise I would vote for them as a show of support, despite the deficiencies in their manifesto).  On this basis, I am inclined to vote for the Conservatives rather than UKIP.

On the other hand, can I bring myself to vote for a party which has so many policies I disagree with?  Maybe the most sensible choice is to stay home, or spoil the ballot paper - perhaps I could scrawl "taxation is theft" across the ballot paper and be done with it!

I have about 6 hours to decide what I am going to do.

Review of UKIP Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the UK Independence Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

To clarify, since I am libertarian I will give a positive score to any policy that increases liberty and a negative score to any policy that decreases liberty.

I have done a similar review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party here, the Labour Party here and the LibDem Party here.  I'll do the same for UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• -1: The NHS doesn't need more funding, the system is flawed and we need a free market in healthcare
• -1: Government shouldn't be funding education or training for anyone, even nurses.  Students should pay for their own training or find someone willing to voluntarily pay for them.  If there were a free market in healthcare, it is likely that private healthcare organisations would pay for nurse training
• +1: Those who have not paid into the NHS should not be able to reap the benefits from it without paying.  Charitable individuals are welcome to pay for the healthcare of foreign nationals if they wish
• +1: The NHS should be moved towards a market-based system, but PFI doesn't do this.  It is simply the NHS outsourcing the building of hospitals to the private sector, and in many cases represents a worse deal than if the new hospitals had been funded directly.  See the IEA report "Universal Healthcare without the NHS" for more details.

Brexit

• +2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, including the ECJ, single market and customs union, so this is merely the implementation of the will of the people expressed in the referendum 
• +2: Fishing rights was an important issue during the campaign, and it is important for the UK fishing industry to take back control of our waters, which the EU has forbidden us from fishing in
• +2: We do not owe the EU anything.  We have been one of the biggest contributors to the EU budget over the years.  If anything, they should be paying us as we are relinquishing control of assets that we have paid for
• +1: 2 years is more than enough time for the negotiations.

Immigration

• +1: Freedom of movement is unsustainable while we have a welfare state, socialised industries and subsidised housing
• -1: High-skilled immigration is needed and benefits the country.  Quality is more important than quantity, and a net figure of zero would mean we are turning away many immigrants that would benefit this country
• +1: If an immigrant is economically self-supporting, they should be welcomed, while those that cannot support themselves should be turned away.  It is likely that unskilled or low-skilled immigrants cannot support themselves and would be a net loss to this country
• +1: Those who have not paid into the NHS should not be able to reap the benefits from it without paying. 

Economy and Taxes

• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  So tax cuts should always be welcomed
• +2: See above
• +2: See above
• -1: See above.  Tax loopholes should be opened to everyone, not closed.

Education and Family

• 0: Grammar schools are better for children than comprehensive schools, so they should be more of them.  However, government shouldn't fund them, and this is presumably what is meant by this pledge
• -1: Students, their parents (or private charities) should pay for their own university education; taxpayers should not
• +1: Government should not be offering or underwriting any loans to anyone
• 0: Government should not be involved in education at all.  However, while it is, it is right to focus more on technical and vocational education rather than frivolous degrees such as gender studies.  

Housing

• -1: Government should not be in the business of building houses; it should get out of the way so that the private sector can build the houses needed to meet demand
• -1: See above
• -1: Compulsory purchase is a euphemism for theft
• 0: Whether this increases or decreases liberty depends on what the review finds.

Welfare and Pensions

• -1: Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise pensioners.  State pensions should be privatised, but until they are they should not increase at a rate above both inflation and wages, because this is effectively a forced transfer to pensioners from younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• -1: Care should be paid for by the individuals receiving the care or by those willing to voluntarily pay for them; taxpayers should not paying for anyone's care
• -1: The welfare system should be privatised, so that everyone can decide for themselves who is deserving of their charity.  Private charity is better targeted and delivered more effectively than welfare payments
• -1: The "bedroom tax" is not a tax; it is a reduction to a subsidy.  

Foreign and Defence

• -1: We already have sufficient armed forces to defend this country.  The focus of the armed forces should be changed to be purely defence of this nation, not fighting wars overseas
• +1: The EU would benefit much more from military cooperation with us than we do from cooperating with them; we should make use of this during the negotiations
• +1: It is good for nations to cooperate together, such as by agreeing free trade deals, as long as they do not give up their sovereignty to international organisations or get involved in entangling military alliances
• +2: Obviously the UK should not get involved in any foreign wars.

Future of the UK

• 0: This would move us towards direct democracy and this is in some ways worse than representative democracy.  On the other hand, it may bring about some important changes in the political system that might not take place otherwise, such as increased decentralisation
• +1: While we have a state, it should reflect the will of the people, and UKIP getting 13% of the popular vote but only winning one MP suggests there is something wrong with the current system
• +1: This would help reduce the costs of government
• 0: This would decentralise the state which is good, but I would rather see further devolution and secession in Scotland, NI and Wales such that the UK parliament becomes the de facto English parliament.

Transport and Environment

• -1: Government should not be making this decision.  Airports should be privately owned and each owner should decide for himself whether to expand or not.  It may be that expanding Heathrow is more efficient than expanding the other airports; government has no way of calculating this.
• +1: Government should not be funding new transport infrastructure.
• -1: There are very few toll roads in this country.  Charging tolls is more efficient (it reduces traffic for those willing to pay more) and it is fairer for the actual users of any given road to be the ones to pay for it.
• +1: The Climate Change Act is economically destructive as well as completely pointless.

Overall

• Health and Care: 0
• Brexit: +7
• Immigration: +2
• Economy and Taxes: +5
• Education and Family: 0
• Housing: -3
• Welfare and Pensions: -4
• Foreign and Defence: +3
• Future of the UK: +2
• Transport and Environment: 0

Final Score: +12

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Don't forget to check out my similar review of the Conservative manifesto here, the Labour manifesto here, and the LibDem manifesto here.

Review of LibDem Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the Liberal Democrat Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

To clarify, since I am libertarian I will give a positive score to any policy that increases liberty and a negative score to any policy that decreases liberty.

I have done a similar review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party here and the Labour Party here.  I'll do the same for UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.
• -1: Government shouldn't be in the health care business at all.  The waiting time standards for physical health care are abysmal relative to other European countries.  Waiting times for both physical and mental health care should be lower, and the only way to do this is move the NHS towards a free market health care system.
• -1: See above.  
• -1: See above.

Brexit

• -2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, even knowing there was a "risk" of not getting a deal with the EU.  This is blatantly an attempt to overturn the referendum result and is an absolutely terrible negotiating strategy.  It creates an incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal!
• +1: Almost no one wants EU citizens living here legally to be deported.  Even if no deal is reached with the EU, they would not be deported.  This makes it pointless to use them as a "bargaining chip" in the negotiations, and creates unnecessary uncertainty.
• -2: We voted to leave the EU and it was made extremely clear that this included leaving the single market and customs union.  This Party clearly has contempt for democracy and the British people.
• -2: Freedom of movement is unsustainable while we have a welfare state, socialised industries and subsidised housing.  Ending freedom of movement was one of the key reasons why many British people voted to leave the EU.

Immigration

• -2: See above.
• +1: High-skilled immigration is needed and benefits the country.
• -1: Why?  This seems like an arbitrary way to manipulate the net migration figures.
• -2: Many of these "refugees" are in fact low-skilled economic migrants, or worse are criminals or terrorists.

Economy and Taxes

• +1: These are sensible goals to have, but they should be achieved by reducing spending, not by increasing taxes.
• -2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.
• -2: Government should not be involved in any of those industries, and certainly shouldn't be borrowing to "invest" in them.
• -2: See above.  The corporate tax rate was cut from 28% to 19% by the Conservatives and this INCREASED corporate tax receipts.  By reversing these cuts, receipts would likely reduce, as well destroying marginal businesses and jobs, and making products more expensive.  Capital gains and inheritance taxes are similar.

Education and Family

• -1: Throwing more money at the education system is not going to improve education; only allowing free markets in education will achieve that.  
• -1: All types of schools should be allowed; let parents decide where they want their children to be schooled, if anywhere.
• -1: Teachers, like everyone else, should be paid according to the value they produce (their marginal productivity), and the only way to ensure this is to have a free market in schooling and let individual schools decide how much they pay each teacher
• -1: Students, their parents (or private charities) should pay for their own schooling; taxpayers should not.

Housing

• -1: Government should not be in the business of building houses; it should get out of the way so that the private sector can build the houses needed to meet demand.
• -1: See above.
• -1: Right to buy should be extended and all state-owned houses should be sold to the private sector.
• -1: Taxation is theft and economically destructive.  All taxes should be eliminated or reduced, and certainly not raised.

Welfare and Pensions

• -1: Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise pensioners.  It should be up to bus companies to decide whether to allow pensioners to travel for free.  State pensions should be privatised, but until they are they should not increase at a rate above both inflation and wages, because this is effectively a forced transfer to pensioners from younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• +1: Government should not be subsidising anyone, let alone wealthy pensioners.
• -1: The welfare system should be privatised, so that everyone can decide for themselves who is deserving of their charity.  Private charity is better targeted and delivered more effectively than welfare payments.  
• -1: See above.

Foreign and Defence

• -1: We are spending about 2% now, and that should be reduced by refocusing the armed forces as above.
• -2: Individuals should be able to decide who receives the money they wish to spend on charitable causes.  Government international aid is typically ill-targeted, inefficient and increases corruption, such as by supporting dictatorships in Africa
• -1: Weapons manufacturers should be able to sell to whoever they please, as long as they are not subsidised by the government.
• -1: The nuclear deterrent is nothing but a waste of money and a favour to weapons manufacturers.  There are no circumstances in which nuclear weapons should be used, so there is no reason to have them.

Future of the UK

• +1: Decentralisation should always be welcomed.
• -1 The Barnett formula is a forced transfer payment from England to the other home nations.  Each nation should support itself.  
• +2: This would help with decentralisation efforts in places like Yorkshire, Cornwall and Rutland.
• -1: Scotland would be better off leaving the UK - as would the rest of the UK.

Transport and Environment

• -1: Government should not subsidising destruction of any kind.
• -1: Government should not be enforcing any kind of emissions targets or zones.
• -2: That would be hugely economically destructive (so-called "clean energy" is far more expensive overall than traditional energy sources), and would be completely pointless since the UK makes up only a tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, and the science regarding the effects of greenhouse gases is far from settled.
• -1: Government should not be involved in the energy industry or deciding between different forms or methods of generating power.

Overall

• Health and Care: -5
• Brexit: -5
• Immigration: -4
• Economy and Taxes: -5
• Education and Family: -4
• Housing: -4
• Welfare and Pensions: -2
• Foreign and Defence: -5
• Future of the UK: +1
• Transport and Environment: -5

Final Score: -38

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Don't forget to check out my similar review of the Conservative manifesto here and the Labour manifesto here.  Over the next few days, I'll do a similar review of the UKIP manifesto.

Review of Labour Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the Labour Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

To clarify, since I am libertarian I will give a positive score to any policy that increases liberty and a negative score to any policy that decreases liberty.

I have done a similar review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party here.  I'll do the same for the Lib Dems and UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• -2: The NHS doesn't need more funding, the system is flawed and we need a free market in healthcare.  £30bn is a huge increase in funding, far more than the £8bn pledge from the Conservatives
• -2: Privatisation should be extended to cover the entire health care system, not reversed.  The partial and piecemeal privatisation from the Conservatives amounts to corporatism, where private businesses and the state are in partnership.  The full benefits of privatisation will only come when the whole system is private
• -1: Such a guarantee would require a massive increase in funding, and even then is doubtful.  Private providers operating in a free market are more likely to achieve that target
• -1: Every person should pay for their own care or find somewhat willing to voluntarily pay for them; taxpayers should not be forced to pay.

Brexit

• -2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, and this includes leaving the single market and customs union, as was made clear before the referendum
• +1: Almost no one wants EU citizens living here legally to be deported.  Even if no deal is reached with the EU, they would not be deported.  This makes it pointless to use them as a "bargaining chip" in the negotiations, and creates unnecessary uncertainty.
• -1: There are some so-called "workers' rights" and "environmental protections" that should be removed after we have completed our withdrawal, so we should not now hamstring ourselves by committing to maintain them.
• -2: I can't think of a worse negotiating strategy than to say that we will accept any deal rather than leaving with no deal!  Obviously that creates an incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal!  The Conservatives and UKIP are right that no deal would be better than a bad deal (and better than remaining in the EU).

Immigration

• +1: While the UK has a welfare state, socialised industries and state subsidies, freedom of movement is unworkable.
• -1: Free markets handle changes in conditions (such as an increased population) better than any state planner ever could, so there is no need for this fund.
• -1: Why?  This seems like an arbitrary way to manipulate the net migration figures.
• 0: The main problem with immigration is bad policy, not enforcement; unlike in the US, where ILLEGAL immigration is a major problem, in the UK the problem is uncontrolled LEGAL immigration.  Policies should be changed.  Having said that, additional border guards may be needed to ensure the new policies are enforced; I would need more information to decide whether I agree with this policy.

Economy and Taxes

• -2: Stimulus packages prevent the market from recovering from a previous distortion of the market caused by central banks.  It is an immoral transfer of wealth from taxpayers to support companies that are wasting resources.   
• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive, so should be eliminated, or at least reduced, and certainly not increased
• -2: See above.  Theft from "the rich" is still theft, and still economically destructive.
• -2: See above.  The corporate tax rate was cut from 28% to 19% by the Conservatives and this INCREASED corporate tax receipts.  By reversing these cuts, receipts would likely reduce, as well destroying marginal businesses and jobs, and making products more expensive.

Education and Family

• -1: People that wish to go to university to pay for it themselves; taxpayers should not
• -1: Parents that wish to use childcare should pay for it themselves; taxpayers should not
• -1: Teachers, like everyone else, should be paid according to the value they produce (their marginal productivity), and the only way to ensure this is to have a free market in schooling and let individual schools decide how much they pay each teacher
• -1: Class sizes should be lower, but the way to do this is to have a free market in schooling, not by increasing funding for a failing socialist system.  Parents (or private charities) should pay for their children to eat; taxpayers should not.

Housing

• -2: Price controls are always economically destructive.  Maximum price laws create shortages; a maximum rent law will prevent housing supply from rising to meet demand.  
• -1: Government should not be in the business of owning houses; all council houses should be sold immediately, and the right-to-buy policy is one way to do this, so it should be kept and expanded.
• -1: See above.  Government should get out of the way so that the private sector can build the houses needed to meet demand.
• -1: See above.  Private charities can help people that need help, and can do so much more efficiently and effectively than government can.

Welfare and Pensions

• -1: Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise pensioners.  Winter fuel payments, if needed, should be paid by private charities, not the state.  It should be up to bus companies to decide whether to allow pensioners to travel for free.  State pensions should be privatised, but until they are they should not increase at a rate above both inflation and wages, because this is effectively a forced transfer to pensioners from younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• -1: The welfare system should be privatised, so that everyone can decide for themselves who is deserving of their charity.  Private charity is better targeted and delivered more effectively than welfare payments.  
• -1: The way to increase employment is to allow free markets: lower taxes, fewer regulations, no price controls and by privatising socialised industries.  With free markets, employment and wages would be maximised, lessening the need for welfare top-ups.
• -1: People that want or need a carer should pay for it themselves or find someone who will pay for them voluntarily; taxpayers should not be forced to do so.

Foreign and Defence

• +1: A review is needed, and hopefully it will find that we will be safer if we stop aggressing against foreign nations, and instead refocus the armed forces on defending this country.  
• -1: We are spending about 2% now, and that should be reduced by refocusing the armed forces as above.
• -2: Individuals should be able to decide who receives the money they wish to spend on charitable causes.  Government international aid is typically ill-targeted, inefficient and increases corruption, such as by supporting dictatorships in Africa
• -1: If veterans want home insulation they should pay for it themselves or find someone who will pay for them voluntarily; taxpayers should not be forced to do so.

Future of the UK

• 0: This would be a waste of time and money; as the example of the USA proves, a Constitution is powerless to limit government or prevent them from violating fundamental rights.
• -1: Nobody should be able to vote themselves more money at the expense of someone else; suffrage should be reduced, not expanded.
• -2: If the Scots want to secede, they should certainly be allowed to.  Being kept in the UK against their will is a clear violation of the principle of self-determination.
• 0: This seems like a waste of time and money, since England already dominates the UK.  Far better to allow Scotland, NI and Wales to secede (or grant them more autonomy) so that UK ministers become de facto ministers for England.

Transport and Environment

• -2: Government should not be involved in the transport industry; it should end the monopolistic Network Rail, stop subsidising and regulating rail companies and allow genuine competition instead
• -1: Government should not be involved in running bus services
• -1: No legislation should be passed in the name of preventing pollution.  The best way to prevent harmful pollution is for the courts to enforce genuine property rights, treating pollution as an invasion of private property.
• -1: Government should not be involved in the energy industry or deciding between different forms or methods of generating power.

Overall

• Health and Care: -6
• Brexit: -4
• Immigration: -1
• Economy and Taxes: -4
• Education and Family: -4
• Housing: -5
• Welfare and Pensions: -4
• Foreign and Defence: -3
• Future of the UK: -3
• Transport and Environment: -5

Final Score: -39

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Don't forget to check out my similar review of the Conservative manifesto here.  Over the next few days, I'll do a similar review of the Lib Dem and UKIP manifestos.

Review of Conservative Manifesto

This is a quick review of the manifesto of the Conservative Party, based on the bullet-point summary provided by the BBC here.  I will make a brief comment on each bullet and award a score as follows:

• 2 points if I agree and it is important, or I very strongly agree
• 1 points if I agree but I don't consider it important
• 0 points if I am unsure or don't care
• -1 points if I disagree but I don't consider it important
• -2 points if I disagree and it is important, or I very strongly disagree

I'll do the same for the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and UKIP over the coming days.  I have already written a detailed review of the Libertarian Party manifesto here.

Health and Care

• -1: The NHS doesn't need more funding, the system is flawed and we need a free market in healthcare
• +1: Every person should pay for their own care or find somewhat willing to voluntarily pay for them; taxpayers should not be forced to pay
• -1: There shouldn't be a cap, see above
• +1: No problem deferring bills as long as they get paid (though this should be a decision for the each care home to make individually).

Brexit

• +2: We sensibly voted to leave the EU, and this includes leaving the single market and customs union, as was made clear before the referendum
• +2: Correct, no deal would be better than a bad deal, and better than remaining in the EU
• +1: The settlement is less important than the ongoing arrangements, but we should still seek to get back some of what we have contributed to the EU over the years, and certainly shouldn't pay a bill to be allowed to leave!
• +1: Yes, for an orderly transition, just translate all EU law into UK law, then after we've left we can remove the (many) parts of EU law that are bad for the UK.

Immigration

• +1: Quality is more important than quantity, but reducing the total number should mean those who get accepted are better quality
• -1: Companies should be able to employ whoever they want, so they should not be penalised for hiring immigrants
• +1: This would help ensure immigrants are economically self-supporting and therefore a net benefit to the UK
• 0: This would depend on whether the students are an economic benefit to the country or an economic loss, and I don't know which is the case.

Economy and Taxes

• +1: A balanced budget is important because future generations should not be burdened with the debt of the current generation.  This should be achieved by reduced spending, not by increased taxation.  It should be done as soon as possible and should easily be achieved sooner than 2025.
• +2: Taxation is theft and economically destructive, so should be eliminated, or at least reduced, and certainly not increased
• +2: See above, any and all tax cuts should be welcomed
• 0: Depends what the review finds, obviously.  Hopefully it will reach the sensible conclusion that reducing business rates will help businesses thrive, create jobs, economic growth and cheaper products.

Education and Family

• -1: The problem with state-run schools is the same as with any socialist system (waste, inefficiency, bad incentives, lack of innovation, inability to rationally allocate resources, etc).  Since the problems in the schools are systemic, throwing more money at them would just be a waste of taxpayers' money.  Homeschooled children and children that go to schools outside the state system get a better education than those in state-run schools.
• -1: All state schools should have their budgets cut - to zero!
• +1: All types of schools should be allowed
• -1: Tinkering with the qualification system (again!) is not going to help anyone.

Housing

• -1: Government should not be in the business of building houses; they should get out of the way so that the private sector can get on with it.  All council houses should be sold immediately
• +1: I presume this means reducing regulations so that the private sector can meet the strong demand for more houses in this country, rather than building council or subsidised housing
• +1: Government should not be owning any land, so if this means freeing up government-owned land for the private sector I am all for it
• -1: Government should not be in the business of making sure people have houses.  If some people need the kind of help this Act proposes, let private charities provide it.  They will do a better job and won't use force to obtain funds.

Welfare and Pensions

• +1: State pensions should be privatised, but at least this will ensure that pensioners don't benefit from income increases above both inflation and wages, at the expense of younger people who are working hard to make ends meet
• +1: Winter fuel payments should be paid by private charities, not the state, but at least this will ensure that wealthy pensioners who do not need the money will not receive them any more; any private charity would adopt a similar policy
• 0 (-1 and +1): It should be up to bus companies whether they allow pensioners to travel for free, they should not be state-subsidised.  The exclusion from having to pay for a TV license should be kept, and extended to everyone, i.e. it should be abolished immediately as an unjust, unfair and archaic method of funding what is mostly state propaganda
• -1: All regulators should have less power, not more power; people should be free to make exchanges with anyone they please on any terms they wish so long as there is no force or fraud involved.

Foreign and Defence

• -2: The UK should withdraw from all these organisations, and work with other nations to address international issues on a purely case-by-case basis.  No entangling alliances!
• +1: The UK should definitely become a global champion for free trade, but not by signing new trade deals, which are totally unnecessary.  The UK should declare universal free trade unilaterally, setting an example for other countries to follow
• -2: Individuals should be able to decide who receives the money they wish to spend on charitable causes, by donating to private charities.  Government-to-government aid is typically ill-targeted, inefficient and increases corruption, such as by supporting dictatorships in Africa
• -1: UK defence spending should not be bound to any target set by NATO or anyone else; defense spending should be reduced by cutting out all overseas spending.

Future of the UK

• +2: Decisions should always be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by them, which means devolution should be extended, and certainly not reversed
• -1: Each nation (indeed each county and even each individual) should be allowed to declare independence from the UK whenever they wish.  It should not be up to Westminster to decide when Scotland has it's second referendum, but the Scots themselves.  Personally, I'd advise the Scots to wait until Brexit is finished, but it should be up to them
• 0: The number of civil servants should be reduced.  What would be the point of moving them out of London and the South East?
• -1: This fund is apparently to be used to reduce inequality between regions, effectively a new subsidy payment from the south to the north, to replace EU subsidies.  Government should not be involved in transfer payments of any kind, including to reduce inequality.  Let the regions secede if they wish.

Transport and Environment

• -1: Government should not be involved in the transport industry; all transport infrastructure should be privatised and government should get out of the way for the private sector to deliver a better service at a lower price
• -1: Government should not get involved in any disputes between companies and their employees.  Employees should be allowed to strike, as long as they do not initiate violence against anyone.  Companies should be allowed to fire employees who strike
• -1: Heathrow Airport should be completely private, and the question of expanding it should be made on a commercial basis by the owners of the airport
• -1: Rail tickets should be priced in whatever way the rail companies believe is best and it is no business of government how they price their tickets.  Genuine competition in the rail industry (no monopolies, no regulations, no subsidies) would help ensure that rail companies make decisions based on what is best for their customers.

Overall

• Health and Care: 0
• Brexit: +6
• Immigration: +1
• Economy and Taxes: +5
• Education and Family: -2
• Housing: 0
• Welfare and Pensions: +1
• Foreign and Defence: -4
• Future of the UK: 0
• Transport and Environment: -4

Final Score: +3

Have I been fair in my review?  Do you agree with how I have scored the policies?  Let me know in the comments below.

Over the next few days, I'll do a similar review of Labour, the Lib Dem and UKIP manifestos.  I wonder if any of them will get a higher score than the Conservatives.,.