David Cameron holds aloft the Conservative 2015 manifesto. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The 23 most terrifying things in the Tory manifesto

Manifest-woe.

Did you have time to read the Tory manifesto in full before they snatched a majority from the jaws of constitutional chaos? No? Well, I've had a little read through, and here are some of the most unsettling proposals:

Claiming benefits is the "wrong thing"

"Under Labour, those who worked hard found more and more of their earnings taken away in tax to support a welfare system that allowed, and even encouraged, people to choose benefits when they could be earning a living. This sent out terrible signals: if you did the right thing, you were penalised – and if you did the wrong thing, you were rewarded, with the unfairness of it all infuriating hardworking people."

The welfare cap will be reduced to £23,000 per household. Regardless of the fairness of this, painting benefits claimants as doing "wrong" is pretty sinister.

Ruling out tax rises

“Commit to no increases in VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax.”

They've even said they'd enshrine this in law. It would be silly to tax for ideology's sake (as some have accused Labour of wanting to do), but isn't it even less responsible to completely rule out a useful source of revenue? Particularly as the economy is so unpredictable?

No housing benefit for jobseekers

“It is also not fair that taxpayers should have to pay for 18-21 year-olds on Jobseeker’s Allowance to claim Housing Benefit in order to leave home. So we will ensure that they no longer have an automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit.”

That'll make it easier to work hard and get on in life, won't it?

Limiting strikes

"We will, in addition, tackle the disproportionate impact of strikes in essential public services by introducing a tougher threshold in health, education, fire and transport. Industrial action in these essential services would require the support of at least 40 per cent of all those entitled to take part in strike ballots – as well as a majority of those who actually turn out to vote."

Because if key workers who are teaching our children, saving our lives, taking us to work and nursing us back to health are sick of being shafted, we don't want to hear it.

Low pay can stay low

Only real terms rises in Minimum Wage: "The National Minimum Wage should rise to £6.70 this autumn, on course for a Minimum Wage that will be over £8 by the end of the decade."

And no incentive for businesses to pay the Living Wage: "We also support the Living Wage and will continue to encourage businesses and other organisations to pay it whenever they can afford it."

Bring back fox hunting

"We will protect hunting, shooting and fishing, for all the benefits to individuals, the environment and the rural economy that these activities bring. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time."

Taking disability benefits away

"We are reassessing those on incapacity benefits so that help goes to those who really need it."

Keeping the net migration target, kind of

“Keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.”

They've diluted it from "target" to "ambition" - either way it's futile.

Trying to use welfare to reduce immigration

"To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."

Pointless, because less than 5 per cent of EU migrants are claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance, while less than 10 per cent are claiming other DWP working-age benefits.

Trying to use housing to reduce immigration

"We will introduce a new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years."

They've already denied them any housing benefit. Again, pointless, because there are similar levels of UK nationals and foreign-born people living in social housing, and the immigrant population is three times as likely to be in the private rental sector than their UK-born neighbours.

Landlords will have to check their tenants' immigration status

"We will implement the requirement for all landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants."

Because landlords can be trusted to do sensitive race-related work on behalf of the government.

Counting foreign students in the immigration numbers

"Across the spectrum, from the student route to the family and work routes, we will build a system that truly puts you, your family and the British people first."

International students coming to London alone contribute £2.3bn towards the economy. Go away, guys!

Arbitrary insistence on fluent English

"We will legislate to ensure that every public sector worker operating in a customer-facing role must speak fluent English."

How? Why?

Free schools anywhere

No regard for where free schools are needed: "deliver free schools for parents and communities that want them."

Let's fund the NHS, somehow

"Because of our long-term economic plan, we are able to commit to increasing NHS spending in England in real terms by a minimum of £8 billion over the next five years."

Ohhh, you're making the money for it from a slogan. Clever.

Threats to the BBC licence fee

"We will deliver a comprehensive review of the BBC Royal Charter, ensuring it delivers value for money for the licence fee payer, while maintaining a world class service and supporting our creative industries. That is why we froze the BBC licence fee and will keep it frozen, pending Charter renewal."

It's a goner.

Boundary review

"We will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value... We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018. This will deal with the fact that the current electoral layout over-represents parts of the country where populations have been falling and under-represents parts where populations have been rising."

This could advantage the Tories by 10 seats or more.

No House of Lords reform

"While we still see a strong case for introducing an elected element into our second chamber, this is not a priority in the next Parliament."

The new party of working people, ladies and gentlemen.

No electoral reform

"We will respect the will of the British people, as expressed in the 2011 referendum, and keep First Past the Post for elections to the House of Commons."

Respect, distort - potato-potato.

Leave onshore windfarms up to NIMBYs

"We will end any new public subsidy for them and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications."

They want to "halt the spread" of onshore windfarms, in spite of the manifesto stating "Onshore wind now makes a meaningful contribution to our energy mix".

Scrapping the Human Rights Act

"The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights."

So which human rights are you scrapping, and which are you keeping?

Snoopers' Charter

"Our new communications data legislation will strengthen our ability to disrupt terrorist plots, criminal networks and organised child grooming gangs, even as technology develops. We will maintain the ability of the authorities to intercept the content of suspects’ communications, while continuing to strengthen oversight of the use of these powers."

Inheritance tax cut

"Take the family home out of Inheritance Tax for all but the richest by raising the effective threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1 million."

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Tinder dating app isn't just about sex – it's about friendship, too. And sex

The lines between sex, love and friendship are blurrier than ever, as I found out quickly while using the app.

The first time I met someone using Tinder, the free dating app that requires users to swipe left for “no” and right for “yes” before enabling new “matches” to chat, it was an unqualified success. I should probably qualify that. I was newly single after five years in a committed relationship and wasn’t looking for anything more than fun, friendship and, well, who knows. A few weeks earlier I had tried to give my number to a girl in a cinema café in Brixton. I wrote it on a postcard I’d been using as a bookmark. She said she had a boyfriend, but wanted to keep the postcard. I had no date and I lost my page.

My Tinder date was a master’s student from Valencia called Anna (her name wasn’t really Anna, of course, I’m not a sociopath). When I arrived at the appointed meeting place, she told me I was far more handsome IRL (“in real life”) than my pictures suggested. I was flattered and full of praise for the directness of continental Europeans but also thought sadly to myself: “If only the same could be said about you.”

Anna and I became friends, at least for a while. The date wasn’t a success in the traditional sense of leading us into a contract based on exclusivity, an accumulating cache of resentments and a mortgage, but it had put me back in the game (an appropriate metaphor – people speak regularly of “playing” with the app).

According to Sean Rad, the co-founder who launched Tinder in late 2012, the service was invented for people like me. “It was really a way to overcome my own problems,” he told the editor of Cosmopolitan at an event in London last month. “It was weird to me, to start a conversation [with a stranger]. Once I had an introduction I was fine, but it’s that first step. It’s difficult for a lot of people.” After just one outing, I’d learned two fundamental lessons about the world of online dating: pretty much everyone has at least one decent picture of themselves, and meeting women using a so-called hook-up app is seldom straightforwardly about sex.

Although sometimes it is. My second Tinder date took place in Vienna. I met Louisa (ditto, name) outside some notable church or other one evening while visiting on holiday (Tinder tourism being, in my view, a far more compelling way to get to know a place than a cumbersome Lonely Planet guide). We drank cocktails by the Danube and rambled across the city before making the romantic decision to stay awake all night, as she had to leave early the next day to go hiking with friends. It was just like the Richard Linklater movie Before Sunrise – something I said out loud more than a few times as the Aperol Spritzes took their toll.

When we met up in London a few months later, Louisa and I decided to skip the second part of Linklater’s beautiful triptych and fast-track our relationship straight to the third, Before Midnight, which takes place 18 years after the protagonists’ first meet in Vienna, and have begun to discover that they hate each others’ guts.

Which is one of the many hazards of the swiping life: unlike with older, web-based platforms such as Match.com or OkCupid, which require a substantial written profile, Tinder users know relatively little about their prospective mates. All that’s necessary is a Facebook account and a single photograph. University, occupation, a short bio and mutual Facebook “likes” are optional (my bio is made up entirely of emojis: the pizza slice, the dancing lady, the stack of books).

Worse still, you will see people you know on Tinder – that includes colleagues, neighbours and exes – and they will see you. Far more people swipe out of boredom or curiosity than are ever likely to want to meet up, in part because swiping is so brain-corrosively addictive.

While the company is cagey about its user data, we know that Tinder has been downloaded over 100 million times and has produced upwards of 11 billion matches – though the number of people who have made contact will be far lower. It may sound like a lot but the Tinder user-base remains stuck at around the 50 million mark: a self-selecting coterie of mainly urban, reasonably affluent, generally white men and women, mostly aged between 18 and 34.

A new generation of apps – such as Hey! Vina and Skout – is seeking to capitalise on Tinder’s reputation as a portal for sleaze, a charge Sean Rad was keen to deny at the London event. Tinder is working on a new iteration, Tinder Social, for groups of friends who want to hang out with other groups on a night out, rather than dating. This makes sense for a relatively fresh business determined to keep on growing: more people are in relationships than out of them, after all.

After two years of using Tinder, off and on, last weekend I deleted the app. I had been visiting a friend in Sweden, and took it pretty badly when a Tinder date invited me to a terrible nightclub, only to take a few looks at me and bolt without even bothering to fabricate an excuse. But on the plane back to London the next day, a strange thing happened. Before takeoff, the woman sitting beside me started crying. I assumed something bad had happened but she explained that she was terrified of flying. Almost as terrified, it turned out, as I am. We wound up holding hands through a horrific patch of mid-air turbulence, exchanged anecdotes to distract ourselves and even, when we were safely in sight of the ground, a kiss.

She’s in my phone, but as a contact on Facebook rather than an avatar on a dating app. I’ll probably never see her again but who knows. People connect in strange new ways all the time. The lines between sex, love and friendship are blurrier than ever, but you can be sure that if you look closely at the lines, you’ll almost certainly notice the pixels.

Philip Maughan is Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad