Before any general election, anyone involved in advocacy (as I am on aid and development) indulges in ‘what would my dream manifesto look like?’ fantasies. (And then usually goes off to lobby the political parties and be told why their ideas are silly).

2010 is no exception, with the impending (probably 6 May) general election followed by decisive moments this year on climate change (in Mexico in December), on the millennium development goals (UN summit in September), and the 2010 deadline for meeting the G8’s 2005 pledges on aid, debt and universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDs.

But these are straitened times, so in an uncharacteristic burst of fiscal prudence, I’ve confined my shopping list to things that don’t require big dollops of government cash, and may even (e.g. the financial transactions tax) help fill the fiscal abyss:

• Support a global commitment of $150 billion a year in public finance for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries from 2013, not paid for by raiding existing aid budgets. Some of this could come from a new financial transactions tax (FTT).

• The said FTT to apply to all transactions at the rate of 0.05 per cent across the Eurozone. At least 50 per cent of the revenues raised will go towards development and climate change (that’s the tricky bit – keeping the Chancellor’s sticky hands from grabbing all of it to fill the UK fiscal hole).

• Reform the regulation of UK tax havens and tax avoidance by UK companies, to require information disclosure and reporting by multi-national companies on the taxes they pay in each country. This should generate extra tax revenues for the UK, as well as poor countries.

• Outlaw the actions of ‘vulture funds’ seeking to sue developing countries.

• Improve the predictability and quality of UK aid by, among other things, increasing the percentage of aid we provide to developing countries’ own budgets, reforming harmful donor conditionality; and enabling people in developing countries to hold both the UK and their own governments to account on aid promises, backed up by a newly created aid ombudsman.

• Honour the UK’s existing promise to untie aid from the use of British goods and services.

• Be consistent in condemning war crimes, serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.

• Press for the successful conclusion of negotiations for an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2012.

• Work to improve the speed and effectiveness of life-saving humanitarian aid ensuring that it is given impartially and in line with people’s real needs.

• Ensure an effective regulatory framework that encourages responsible corporate behaviour by all British companies and investors, including when they operate overseas.

• Actively promote development as a core issue for G8 and G20 cooperation and ensure that this is covered as a separate agenda item at each meeting of these groups, with at a minimum full representation for the African Union.

• Support the reform of the International Financial Institutions, including ensuring greater representation for poor countries, enhancing their accountability and transparency and ending the practice of attaching economic policy conditionality to lending.

Of course, aid remains vital and necessary, and we will be pushing for whichever party(ies) emerges triumphant to meet and exceed past promises, but isn’t it impressive what a decent government can do, even without big injections of dosh?

Duncan Green is head of research at Oxfam, read his ‘From Poverty to Power’ blog on www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p

1. Disability Hate Crime reports must be taken seriously and acted on appropriately by the police and (if not already) should receive exactly the same punishment as hate crimes against all other minorities.

2. Parents of disabled children should be given full rights to decide what sort of an education they want their child to have, and at which school. Full provision should be made for mainstream schools to be able to meet the needs of children with all disabilities.

3. Disabled adults should be given an allowance specifically to pay for any therapy their condition requires, to be provided at organisations of their choice.

Five key changes are required to transform Britain’s tarnished relationship with the world and make our foreign policy genuinely progressive. They are as follows:

1. Unilateral nuclear disarmament

In the wake of the financial crisis there’s been an increased willingness to dismantle some of the tired old assumptions inherited from the 1980s. Few clichés from the Thatcher era are more richly deserving of consignment to the dustbin of history than the idea that retaining our ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ is the litmus test of hard-headed realism. After all:

• The government cannot so much as name the enemy that the deterrent is supposed to deter;

• Britain ’s ‘independent’ nuclear capability in fact renders us heavily reliant on US management and technology;

• Far from making us safer, the insistence on retaining Trident only increases the chances that other states will seek their own capabilities, which obviously jeopardises international security. The threat of any sort of international nuclear exchange, whether intended or accidental, is no joke; and

• The idea that we should maintain this sort of massive and indiscriminate destructive power because it affords us greater influence on the world stage is little short of obscene.

Its time Britain joined the vast majority of the world’s nations and become a non-nuclear state. The cost savings would be merely an added bonus

2. A serious approach to climate change

For progressive people, the facts on climate change have long been understood. It will take a 40% cut in emissions levels on 1990 levels by 2020 merely to give the planet a fighting chance of averting the 2 degree rise in global temperature that will cause catastrophes across the developing world whose effects will be felt everywhere. In addition to these emissions cuts, those nations that have contributed most to causing global warming – like Britain – have a clear, historic obligation to give developing countries the aid required to deal with its effects. These are the strict criteria by which any defensible UK climate policy must be judged.

3. An end to aggression and occupation

It is Britain ’s policy towards Western Asia that has brought the country’s reputation into the deepest disrepute under New Labour. But the shame of Iraq and our supporting Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon needs to be seen in a broader context. Decades of interference in the affairs of the world’s primary energy producing region have served only to exacerbate conflict, nurture tyranny, retard societal development and internationalise insecurity. Here more than anywhere else, it is time to make a decisive break with Washington. A progressive British government would not invade and occupy countries on the other side of the world, arm an aggressive and expansionist Israel, or cosy up to the various Middle Eastern tyrannies.

4. Withdrawal of arms trade support

In a country that claims to have learnt from the wisdom of Adam Smith, the quasi-mercantilist coddling of the British arms industry by the nanny state seems incongruous to say the least. The questionable efficiency and value for money gained from supporting the industry is significant enough at a time of economic hardship. But beyond this, the fact that government controls fail to prevent our exports from falling into the hands of known human rights abusers renders the practice fundamentally at odds with basic human values. A genuinely progressive government would transfer the public resources used to prop up the arms dealers into research and development for green technology..

5. Reining in the financial sector

If progressives are interested in making Britain a decent and responsible citizen of the world, then we can not forget that the recession born on Wall Street and in the City of London had repercussions right across the globe. International trade shrivelled as credit flows seized up, firms went bust, people lost their jobs and demand plummeted. Britain ’s policy of laissez-faire financial regulation has decidedly international consequences. It is in the world’s interests as well as our own that this failed economic model is read its last rites, and replaced with a way of doing business that does not pose a living, systemic risk to the global economy.

Let me say that I do not for a moment expect Labour or any other party to adopt these policies of their own volition. Progressive victories in politics have always been won by popular struggle from below, never as gifts handed down voluntarily from above. If these are the policies that progressive people across the left want to see enacted, then the only way to make that happen is to organise and make our voices heard.

David Wearing is a PhD researcher at the School of Public Policy, University College London . His articles on British foreign policy have been published by The Guardian and Le Monde Diplomatique

Ban Private Schools

They perpetuate the gross inequalities in the UK; this can only be addressed if they are erased completely.

The two other alternatives which might be more palatable to our politicians are taxing the life out of those that can afford private education (almost impossible), or paying teachers in state education more than those employed privately to drain public schools of their best resource. We do this in many other public sectors to attract the best talent, so why not in education?

Abolish the Monarchy.

Antiquated, expensive and utterly pointless, as well as perpetuating the idea that status and prestige are a privilege of birth.

Abolish the honour system

Not only is this system open to abuse, but we are an international laughing stock, giving out orders for an Empire that has long ceased to exist.

Roll out London Living Wage nationally

The very idea that anybody should be forced to live on 5.73 an hour should be abhorrant to any UK citizen.

Ensure that no person, financial institution or business can borrow money more than they could possibly ever pay back.

The idea that some financial institutions were borrowing up to 50 times against their assets is ridiculous, in what is clearly a doomed strategy.

Equally, 125% mortgages?!

Our guest writer is Peter Carrol

I would like to see a comprehensive and joined up plan to deliver on the Climate Act targets – one that includes serious money from HM Treasury, and that looks again at the UK’s airport expansion plans which threaten to scupper efforts in all other sectors of the economy.

I would love to see a reverse Freedom of Information Act to free data unless withheld.

The ending of departmental attachment in the civil service (so all staff can apply to move freely across service).

An office of budget responsibility.

Abolition of income tax on minimum wage earners.

Swedish schools with a really chunky pupil premium.

Jonty Olliff-Cooper is head of the Progressive Conservatism project at Demos

I’d like to see more of an emphasis placed on intensive interventions for at risk children in early years. I thought Gordon Brown’s plan for a network of homes for single mothers was unfairly characterised as “gulags for slags” at Labour Party Conference. We need more like this; showing that the state has a role to play to ensure that the most vulnerable are cared for and also to show that we won’t stand by when young children are being mis-treated and abused.

The UK is one of the developed world’s most unequal societies – how do we address that absolute inequality into the next decade? One means is the classical way via the taxation system (a redistribution from rich to poor) and the other is to aim to create more equal economic outcomes from our companies. One way to do so is to incentivise employee ownership of companies that, as Robert Oakeshott, researcher on employee ownership, argues “entails a movement from business as a piece of property to business as a working community”.

Cooperatives such as John Lewis show that employee ownership can work. Employee ownership implies social emancipation as workers are members of a team, and puts the scale of earning differentials at the control of the workers – a good check on excessive executive pay.

I would invest seriously in community-based sentences, more half way houses/intermediary options between prison and the community, more residential places out of custody for offenders with mental health problems, close all womens prisons and place women offenders in open residential schemes (hardly any have committed serious or violent crimes)  – this would rehabilitate more effectively, could meet the public’s demand for punishment if done right, and save money because we know these programmes cut reoffending rates.

Rick Muir works for ippr

We need a Green New Deal – funding domestic and industrial renewal energy capacity, public transport works and additional eco-housing capacity  – to sustain economic recovery whilst combining collective and green values at the heart of government.

And of course 50% tax for earners over £100,000.

Trevor Cheeseman is a guest writer for Left Foot Forward

Labour will only win the next election if we can show people that we’re on their side. And what better policy to do this than universal free school meals, which both help hard-pressed families and improve children’s health and learning.

The Labour party in Islington, Newham and County Durham have just introduced free school meals for all – the latter two partly funded by the Government. The results so far show that almost all children are now eating healthy school meals, instead of unhealthy (and expensive) packed lunches or, worse, just some snacks eaten on the way to school.

This not only helps in the battle against childhood obesity, teachers also report that well-fed children learn better and behave better too.

But don’t all children who can’t currently afford a school meal get one for free already? Scandalously, no. The income qualification for free meals is so low that many families under the official poverty line still do not qualify.

Asking families like this to pay for school meals, which cost around £300-a-year per child, is one of the most invidious elements of the poverty trap. Simply the cost of school meals is one of the main reasons it doesn’t pay for some parents to return to work. Breaking the poverty trap is vital to getting more people into work, quickening the pace of economic recovery.

Finally, many children who are eligible for free school meals currently do not claim them, because of the perceived stigma. Some schools even ask children claiming a free school meals to use a different queue. The pilots of universal free school meals show that almost all of the families who would be eligible for free school meals now do claim them as the system no longer singles them out.

Richard Watts is a Labour councillor in Islington

(a) What’s proposed

The whole financial flow of state funding for all political parties that have representatives in the House of Commons (as a proxy for overall current national legitimacy, and to exclude the BNP and other nasties) should be reversed, in order to promote local political activity and devolve power within parties to the ’grassroots’.

The total amount of state funding should be equivalent ONLY to the amount of funding provided indirectly to political parties in the forms of MP allowances, ministerial allowances etc. and, for example, funds spent by the BBC on allowing free party political broadcasts. There would therefore be no overall additional cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a saving might be made.

The overall ‘pot’ of money should then be divided up at a local level e.g. CLP level/Tory association level on a pro-rata basis according to membership at the start of the financial year. It would be up to the parties themselves to debate and decide on what amount of this locally allocated resource should be allocated to national party levels.

If the Labour party want to involve trade unions in those discussions, that’s up to the Labour party etc. The important change would be that, as with the money – if formally lodged with local parties in the first instance – the power balance between centre and local is changed, in my view for the better.

All other types of donations would be permissable, but could only be made to local parties, and would not exceed a certain ratio of private donation to state funding (level to be agreed). Individual donors would only be able to donate to a limited number (let us say 3 for arguments sake) of local parties in this way, of which one would need to be the donor’s area of residence.

Unions would abide by the same rules, with each union branch counting as an individual donor. There would be an expectation that the ratios of state to donor funding permissable would fall over the first few years, as the money is replaced my membership fees in rejuvenated local parties (see below).

(b) Rationale and consequences

The reversal of financial flows, as set out briefly would do two main things.

First, and important enough in the current context of poor public opinion of both MPs and national level political parties, it would make them much more accountable to the local parties that selected them to stand for office (whether parliamentary or intra-party) in the first place.

For example, the money that used to go straight to their MP expenses bank accounts to fund e.g. local offices, local staff as well as their day-to-day personal expenses will be lodged, alongside any other matching funds, with the local party. The MP will need to justify her/his claim to a section of the overall local party ‘pot’, perhaps by setting out a ‘business plan’ for an appropriate period and justifying costs.

In most cases, local parties are going to want an MP who does plenty of casework and local representation, as well as ‘performing’ for them in parliament as they want them to, and will provide a reasonable budget for this, including an OK place to live in London during the week and that kind of thing.

If the MP can justify 1st class travel on the train, for example, because it allows them to get more work done, then that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too. If the local party thinks it might be a better idea if the MP’s office and the local party office functions should be merged to rationalise stuff, then they’ll have the final say.

Equally, national level parties will have to seek money from local parties to carry out their functions. Thus, for example, if the national party wanted to spend money on TV adverts, they’d have to seek the money for it from local parties, probably via (revitalised) party conferences. Local parties might decide instead to approve alternative plans to set up Obama-style IT-based networks, and that would be up to them.

That’s all very well, and all done with the same money as was spent before, just with the decision-making power totally reversed by ‘statute’.

Cynical readers will already however have spotted that, while it’s all very well to devolve power to local parties, this is hardly the same as devolving to local people; local parties are, after all, weak structures, peopled if they are peopled at all by self-selecting, self-referential nobodies with few brain cells to rub together, will run the argument. This argument will come, not least, from party HQs themselves desperate to retain the status quo of the power and money structure, and who are distrustful of the capacity of the ‘foot soldier’ activists.

That, after all, is what is writ large in both main parties’ ’motivational’ literature, and in the many central government documents, influenced by the policy wonks at HQ or at Downing Street – the view that local parties are a thing of the past, that local politics can safely be done away with in favour of technocratic management of CLPs/Tory associations, where the only expectations are lip service to policy reviews and, more important, to campaigning with HQ-sanctioned leaflets, HQ-sanctioned IT set-ups which alienate people ‘on the doorstep’ because they’ve been created by people who’ve never been ‘on the doorstep and don’t realise asking questions of people while ticking off their answers on a pre-arranged coded list is not the same as talking to people like they are people.

The point is that, with a reversal of the financial flow, with what a local party gets dependent on their membership, local parties will suddenly become different beasts.

With money comes the capacity to ‘do stuff’, and combined with a new motivation within existing membership to draw in members, there would almost certainly be a rapid rise in membership, as people actually start to see a point – a decision making point – to being in their party of choice.

They suddenly get not just the opportunity to decide, as a member, on how the MP should use their money (or whether to give them any at all), but also to decide, for example, on whether the party, and by newly re-established link, the area as a whole, will be best served by the state funding going into a dozen leaflets, or into a playscheme the Council won’t pay for.

And suddenly, the way opens up for parties to become mass parties again. At local level, people will engage because engagement matters, and it won’t be long before there is a much smaller distinction between ‘the party’ and the people those parties have, rhetorically, at least, been set up to serve.

As set out above, as membership increases in this way, so will the opportunity to legislate on the permitted ratio of private donations to local funding, as the membership fee total will be counted into this whole. As membership grows therefore, so does democratic entitlement, whereby you don’t have to be called Ashcroft to have your say on what your party does with the cash.

In terms of the Labour party, the obvious additional opportunities will lie in the possibility of renewing the link with trade unions, via membership fees, and in some cases starting even to develop the local party organically as the ‘workers’ council’ in the way aspired to years ago but never really attained because of the very constraints on power, from above, that I have set out above.

Of course, I don’t see the ‘powers-that-be’ leaping up and down with joy at the thought of having their money removed and given to someone else to decide how they might spend it if they behave themselves, but I’d like to see a challenge laid down to them.

The challenge is best in question form, and reflects in part this useful critique of ‘freedom’ (and allied concepts) set out by Dave at Though Cowards Flinch.

It goes:

‘So what do you have against a proposal to actually do what, in paper after paper after speech after speech after speech you have said you want to do – to empower people?

‘What do you have against a proposal to hand over power in a way which does not cost more money, and which comes without any of the financial and legal hang-ups that come when you try to ‘empower communities’ through supposedly allowing them influence on local public policy and local public spending, but in tautologous reality only allows them to do this if they tick YOUR boxes about what communities are, how they should behave, and how they should spend the money (another post to follow from me on the discursive complexities of how ‘empowerment’ is ‘disempowering’)?

‘What do you have against a real ‘freedom’ – freedom to build parties anew, to build democracy? Are you scared of the power you’ll lose, or are you with us?’

Paul Cotterill is the leader of the Labour Group on West Lancashire Borough Council

During the eighties a great number of public assets were sold off, ostensibly with two aims in mind. The choice agenda and the share-owning democracy were given as reasons, although selling the state silver to fund tax cuts was the view among the cynical.

The creation of a share-owning democracy never really happened. It is true enough that there was a clamour when shares were first floated, but these were soon scooped up by the big fish. A quick buck for the small investor, a longer-term gain for the corporate investors, and a loss for tax-payers insofar that what was once owned by us all was (and still is) bought up, often by foreign investors.

Was the choice agenda served? For some industries the answer is undoubtedly yes. Telecommunications was liberated, although superseded by mobile communications. Power (electricity and gas) supply also gives choice, as well as huge profits (creating a call for windfall taxes, unnecessary if still publicly owned).

There were sell-offs that did nothing for the choice agenda. Railways and water are two obvious examples.

Try as I might, when I visit my local railway station I have a choice of one. That railway privatisation has failed to deliver choice is clear, that there are other manifest failures and that the railway companies are in receipt of large subsidies is also a given.

To bring the railways back into public ownership is easily and cheaply achieved. Non-renewal of franchises as and when they come about is a pain-free way to bring this back into public ownership. With climate change very much on the agenda, public transport should be playing a key role in this. I am far from certain that private profit has a role here, and I am sure that a state-funded monopoly is not progressive.

Water supply and sewage disposal are also a utility where choice is non-existent. This vital utility should not be at the mercy of the market. This is another case of a monopoly handed over with little if any discernible improvement to the customer.

Where real choice is created, and where market forces can be proved to deliver improvement, then there is an argument for the sell-offs. Neither applies to railways and water, and the state has a role to play here.

Julian Ware-Lane, Labour PPC for Castle Point

Every major decision made at any level of government should be subject to potential veto by an individual or small group charged exclusively with having regard to the interests of the future inhabitants of this, our one and only planetary home.

The name I think it natural to invest these proposed guarantors of the future with is guardians… n.b. This proposal is less ‘visionary’ (i.e. unrealistic) than it might sound; Hungary has already adopted a somewhat similar proposal, though with less powers.

Road user charges for lorries in Britain, which some EU countries have already successfully introduced but the UK has abandoned as being ‘too difficult’. Such a charge could raise a very large amount of money, which could be spent, among other things, on the following two extremely worthwhile causes:

1. Introduce an environmental community programme, providing useful and satisfying work in undertaking local environmental improvements to communities across the country. In most of our communities there are small jobs which need doing which would improve our local environment and make life more pleasant, safe and worthwhile.

It’s a matter of for example turning a derelict site into an orchard, creating new allotments, renovating an unused building to create a community centre, making small improvements to help cyclists or building a better access path to an area of countryside. And in a recession we have people who unhappily do not have jobs.

So we should allow local authorities to bring the jobless and the opportunities together, and involve communities in small projects, which are usually job-rich, and which make simple and practical improvements. This would in effect be a modern ‘Green New Deal’ version of Roosevelt’s ‘Civilian Conservation Corps’.

2. All derivative products and other exotic financial instruments should be subject to official inspection by the Financial Services Authority. Only those approved would be permitted to be traded. Anyone trying to circumvent the rules by going offshore or on to the internet would face ‘negative enforcement’ – their contracts would be unenforced and unenforceable in law.

1) Citizen MPs
• Introduce proposals for a new class of MPs to be known as Citizen MPs.
• Citizen MPs to be selected at random, as with jury service (except it would be harder to get out of becoming a Citizen MP). I.e. there would be a fair geographical spread and social/age representation.
• Each Citizen MP would serve for 12 months. They would constitute a third of both Houses in Parliament. There would perhaps be 400-500 per year from all over the country, thus meaning that each major town would be likely to be represented by their own Citizen MP.
• Their presence in Parliament would weaken the power of the Whips. In order to win votes, the Government would need to convince these ‘lay folk’ of the rectitude of their policy, thereby enhancing the importance of debates in the chamber.
• The concept of Citizen MPs could be allied to a broader Government move to reinvigorate a sense that citizens have rights and responsibilities. Citizen MPs could be part of a wider move towards elected Crown Prosecutors, directly-elected mayors and other public officials. The concept of jury-style selection of representatives could be extended to local councils.

2) ‘Youthstart’ centres
• A national network of staffed centres for young people of secondary school age.
• To be billed as the next phase of the highly successful and popular post-1997 Surestart scheme.
• Each Youthstart centre to be well-funded and well-designed (perhaps involving leading architects such as Lord Rogers or Lord Foster)
• To be rolled out in deprived areas first, then nationally in time, with the aim of having one in each ward.
• Tied in with a new emphasis on youth work becoming a discipline in itself, with a new qualification that graduates / 6th form-leavers can obtain on-the-job (thereby giving employment to young people).
• To be a secular, adult-supervised, inclusive space for young people with social facilities such as non-alcoholic cafés/music-making/sports facilities, etc.
• Facilities and information on training, careers, etc to be available.
• Young people to be closely involved in the management.
• Local businesses/armed forces/police/high profile individuals to have the opportunity to sponsor, become involved in management, thereby reducing costs and familiarising young people with business/working life.
• Possibly explicitly funded by downgrading or scrapping Trident or a windfall tax on banks/energy companies which make excessive profits.

3) Volunteering
• All graduates to be offered a 25% reduction in their student loan repayments if they commit to and complete a minimum of 2 years of mentoring children in schools in deprived areas.
• Tax incentives for people to volunteer in their communities. People could receive a 1 per cent income tax rebate if they volunteered for two hours or more per week.

4) A Royal Commission on Housing

• To investigate how Government policy can ensure that everybody lives in a decent home, be that rented, private or social housing.
• To investigate key issues associated with housing such as how to increase the supply of housing (both private and social); how and whether to do more to enable young people to buy property or rent in rural communities they grew up in; how and whether to build communities on Green Belt land; to investigate best practice from abroad; whether we could move away from the UK’s focus on home ownership as preferable to quality rented accommodation.

5) The social mobility revolution
• Given that social mobility has probably got worse since 1997, the party should now, explicitly say that we stand for advancing social mobility, meritocracy and equality of opportunity. Possible policies:
• An NHS-style target to reduce average class sizes over time to near those of private schools.
• Punitive taxes on private education.
• Increase teachers’ salaries in line with other senior professions while simultaneously tightening the qualifications criteria for becoming a teacher – thereby enhancing the status of teachers in society.
• Set indicative targets for each major profession, the armed forces, business and other organisations of power and influence for increasing the representation of state school-educated people in their ranks.
• Establish a Social Mobility Commission to monitor the above, and report directly to the PM on progress.

John Slinger

Government should commit to ensuring that all Government jobs, and those with Government contractors, are offered on a part time or flexible basis.

Kate Bell

1. Improved Finances: Half national debt by 2014 and get the public finances in order.

2. Improved Future: Industrial activism coupled with investment in skills, education and in work training to help people and companies through the recession.

3. Improved Public Services: Efficient public services ensuring there are no fewer teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers under a Fourth Term Labour Government.

4. Improved Communities: Place the police at the Heart of their Communities, ensure more convictions in a reformed court system and invest in opportunities for young people.

5. Improved Governance: Votes at 16, House of Lords Reform, Electoral Reform, Mayors for Local Authorities and ward devolution to local councillors.

Richard Angell

My idea for the Progressive manifesto is a fairer funding system for university tuition. This would be achieved by introducing a graduate tax so that essentially students contributions were relevent to what they financially gained from their degrees.

Jack Storry

1. Implement a new ‘social responsibility levy’ on bonuses for those salaried over £200k annually, using the proceeds to create a PAYE Reward Fund to give a little back to the vast majority of the working population who pay their fair share of taxes upfront through PAYE.

2. Remove the anomalous £10 automatic Master’s degree awarded to Oxbridge graduates when the rest of the academic population have to work and study for at least a year for their MA.

3. Free higher education tuition for UK armed forces veterans, paid for by ending charitable status for private fee-paying schools.

4. Democratise NHS Primary Care Trust non-executive appointments by transferring responsibility for appointment from Secretary of State to the elected local authority.

5. Introduce a public right to table propositions before the Commons which must be debated and voted on if 5% public petition threshold is achieved.

Chris Leslie

With parliament coming back, a general election looming and the Copenhagen climate summit just weeks away, this is the time for rhetoric to stop and action to start. That’s why we’ve written this manifesto. The policies show that we can protect the environment while also protecting our economy. We want all politicans to steal our policies.

By using the big economic levers we can have sustainable recovery, create green jobs and cut emissions. But for this to happen politicans need to set aside short term party politics and work together to tackle the really important issues. And frankly, if any political party doesn’t adopt these policies, we should be asking them why not?

Zero carbon. Guarantee that emissions from the UK power sector will be near zero by 2030, as recommended by the UK government’s Committee on Climate Change.

Cut coal. Immediately rule out all emissions from new coal-fired power stations, preventing any new unabated or partially abated coal plants.

Cut emissions 42% by 2020. Commit Britain to meeting the bolder emissions target recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

Insulate Britain. Drastically cut energy wastage by retrofitting all existing buildings and ensuring all new buildings meet zero-emission standards.

Fair financing. Commit to help pay for low carbon development in developing countries, to stop deforestation and to protect the world’s poorest people from the impacts of climate change.

Repower Britain. Commit to ensuring that at least 15% of the UK’s total energy (including heat, electricity and transport) comes from renewables by 2020.

Rewire Britain. Ensure that the electricity grid is upgraded to harness wind power and build smart local grids to improve communities’ ability to generate their own clean energy.

Curb aviation. Stop all airport expansion, including Heathrow’s proposed third runway.

Invest in Britain. Properly fund reseach and development, develop new training programmes and support the manufacturing supply chain to help Britain compete in the global low carbon economy.

Bank on green. Set up a green infrastructure bank that would lend to major low carbon projects and harness the expertise of the financial sector.

Issue green bonds. Give investors and savers a secure new way to help fund green projects through government backed bonds.

Reform taxation. Refocus taxation onto pollution so that it can support new green industries and drive down emissions while strengthening the UK’s finances

The International Energy Agency and leading economists agree that failure to act now will lead to economic as well as environmental disaster. However, if Britain’s political parties can work together to put these policies into practice, they can make Britain competitive in a low carbon world and, most importantly, enable us to play our part in stopping climate change.