Employment and Welfare Provision
Full employment is not something that is possible without extensive change in several areas including the benefits system, health system, tax system, employers views of certain groups of the population, education system, and public perception.
I do not believe removing benefits from people without offering adequate help first is the right thing to do. In this context, adequate help should be with the goal of getting an individual to the point where they can support themselves financially. If the wrong or inadequate support results in someone returning to work and they are not able to maintain their position for whatever reason, they should be given further support even if that means they leave employment and return to the benefit they were on.
I support the rest of this part of the manifesto if parents include those groups I've mentioned under "Families", children being resident includes those meeting the definition of 'Ordinary Residence', and citizens include those currently residing in the country that consider themselves English/British as per my views on "Immigration" if reciprocal rights between states is not applicable.
There are instances where a mother and father staying together is not in the best interest of their children. There are also circumstances where some people may want to raise children but do not believe in marriage. Same-sex couples may also provide a stable atmosphere for children.
Those willing to adopt/foster a child and are deemed capable and can provide a stable home environment should be awarded the same benefits as those of married couples.
Something that is desirable is not always possible. If civil partnerships were available to opposite-sex couples, the issue with those couples averse to marriage (and same-sex couples providing a stable home atmosphere) would be less of an issue if the taxation and welfare policies were applicable to civil partnerships as well.
Sometimes a single-parent household is a better environment than the parents staying together. Although marriage is a preferred option, single parents should not be at a substantial disadvantage if they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the child. In this case, the transferability of tax allowances doesn't appear to be disadvantageous to single parents.
If this policy applied to any two people that provide a stable home environment for children, it would not only encompass those that want recognition of being a couple (that is, share parental responsibility) and decide marriage isn't what they want, but also those that are not able to marry. This would include parent/grandparent, mother/aunt, and other similar situations when it is not both parents bringing up the child(ren).
Denial of residency to those with notifiable diseases, and entry to the UK to those with debilitating illnesses. Although I agree with this in principle as it would reduce the burden on the NHS, I believe each of these cases should be decided upon independently on a case-by-case basis.
An individual with such a disease or illness will not necessarily do anything that would cause a spread of an infectious disease, and someone with an illness may put more than enough money into the economy to cover the cost of any treatment they may need from the NHS.
Those considered at risk to themselves should not be forced into secure care unless they are deemed completely incapable of rational thought. Others should be given the choice of voluntarily entering and leaving secure care if they feel it would benefit them for a short period of time.
Social housing priority to local people and those that are married and in work, I support in principle, assuming married also includes those groups I've mentioned under "Families". I would need to look at how this would effect the current housing allocation points system, however, including those that are in need of housing and from neighbouring areas (i.e. what is definition of 'local' in this context?)
Repeal of Human Rights Act and UK withdrawal from European Convention on Humans Rights . opposed to without a suitable replacement.
Deportation of all immigrants convicted of a criminal offence . opposed to without clarification on which offences would not be included and whether deportation would occur before any chance of appeal.
Deportation of all illegal immigrants to homeland or offshore holding centre . opposed to because of the similarity to former Australian policy.
Refusal to accept asylum seekers and refugees and withdrawal from UN Convention on Refugees . opposed to on principle. Asylum seekers' own and neighbouring countries already have a high number of asylum seekers and refugees, so refusing to accept any refugees (asylum seekers definitively evaluated as genuine) that want resettlement to a third country is morally wrong to me.
If a suitable UK/EU/UN replacement for the UN Convention on Refugees were proposed (possibly as an amendment to the Dublin II Regulation) that resulted in the UK turning away asylum seekers coming from a country that already has an adequate asylum system in place, the UK providing some funding to such countries, and the UK remaining a country accepting resettlement of refugees that want third country resettlement, I would support such a proposed system.
Improving the efficiency of asylum systems in countries with high numbers of asylum seekers should be the main focus for funds, as efficient processing of applications in those countries would result in refugees seeking third country resettlement being able to do so without having to claim asylum in another country.
I believe a distinction needs to be made between unintended offence and intended offence or inciting hatred. Changing or disallowing something because it may cause unintentional offence obviously goes against common sense and free speech.
There is a blurring between political correctness, health and safety decisions, and equality/human rights issues. I think this is probably because political correctness has seeped into the other areas and eroded the effect common sense has on decision making.
For example, some health and safety decisions seem to get made from a politically correct position whilst looking at the risk assessment instead of taking a common sense approach. Furthermore, there is a clear difference between something done in humour and something done through prejudice and/or hatred.
I feel there needs to be a balance between common sense, decency, respect, anti-discrimination, freedom of speech, among other things. We probably have a problem with political correctness because the English/British culture having a stiff upper lip. The majority of the population do not say when they find something offensive unless it is felt to be extremely offensive.
Because we don't say when we find something slightly offensive, we don't normally find out if we were unintentionally offended by something/someone or if something we do/say offends someone. I think the country would have done better had we spent as much energy on getting people to voice when they are offended or think something was distasteful than we've spent getting people to say "you can't say that!" and "can I say that?"