Scrutiny

Approved Challenges

Challenges approved for publication

These are challenge submissions that have been reviewed and approved. Only the proposal reference, the challenge text and an optional submitter name are shown.

• Proposal 09: One Million New Social Homes

  £200 billion??? That’s 1/5th of the entire uk budget!

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  1 September 2026

  Point taken — and, more importantly, taken on board. When I launched these proposals, I said they were there to be questioned, challenged and improved. That promise doesn’t mean very much if I simply dismiss criticism whenever somebody finds a weakness. Several people have now raised serious questions about the cost and practical delivery of this proposal. I think those questions have merit. So rather than trying to win the argument, I’ve decided to improve the policy. You’ll see the result in the next version. The ambition remains, but the mechanism for achieving it is being reconsidered and substantially revised. This is public scrutiny actually changing policy. Thanks for contributing to it — and stay tuned. Manifesto 1.1 is on its way. 🇬🇧

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 09: One Million New Social Homes

  Hahaha you joker! We cnt even build 1 house and ur asking for 1 million?!

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  1 September 2026

  Thank you for challenging this. This is exactly the kind of scrutiny I hoped these proposals would receive. I don’t believe good policymaking means publishing an idea and then stubbornly defending it regardless of the arguments made against it. If people identify genuine problems with a proposal, those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. I’ve listened — and this particular policy is changing as a result. The objective of tackling Britain’s housing shortage remains, but I’ve gone back to the drawing board on how we get there, particularly around cost, scale and deliverability. That’s the whole point of this experiment: proposal → scrutiny → debate → improvement. Keep challenging me. Manifesto 1.1 is coming. 🇬🇧

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 09: One Million New Social Homes

  Way too expensive… this will never work

  Submitted by Alan Wright

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  1 September 2026

  I’ve listened. And I’ve heard you. This is exactly why I opened Manifesto 1.0 to public scrutiny in the first place. A policy shouldn’t be defended simply because I wrote it — if scrutiny exposes weaknesses, it should be challenged, reconsidered and improved. Your comments, alongside other contributions I’ve received, have made me reconsider both the scale and the funding model behind this proposal. So I’m changing it. The ambition to tackle Britain’s housing shortage remains, but the proposal itself is being substantially redesigned to make it more credible, deliverable and financially realistic. This is what I want Manifesto 1.0 to be: read it, challenge it, debate it — and where there’s a better way, improve it. Stay tuned. Manifesto 1.1 is coming. 🇬🇧

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 09: One Million New Social Homes

  Guess all the illegals get these new houses then

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  1 September 2026

  I understand the concern. My position is that British citizens should be given priority for social housing over people awaiting a decision on an asylum claim or people who have entered the country illegally. Manifesto 1.0 also has an upcoming proposal dealing directly with immigration, asylum and illegal entry, so this issue hasn’t been ignored. Stay tuned — I’ll be setting out my position clearly when we reach that proposal.

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 09: One Million New Social Homes

  This is a joke how we gona afford this?

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  1 September 2026

  That’s a fair question. One million homes is deliberately ambitious, and I’m not pretending it would be cheap. The aim is 100,000 new social homes a year over ten years, but we would have to work within the public finances. If the money wasn’t available to build at that pace, we would slow the programme down. If the economy and public finances allowed us to go faster, we could. I’d rather set an ambitious target and be open about the cost than pretend there are easy answers to Britain’s housing shortage.

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 06: The Britain Welcome Programme

  more immigrants??? Just wot r country needs

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  I hear you, and I hear your concerns. Immigration is an issue tied very closely to people’s emotions, experiences and worries, and I don’t want to dismiss those concerns or simply tell you that you’re wrong. Part of the reason I created this scrutiny section is because I want to understand what people genuinely think — including when they strongly disagree with me. So I’d be interested to hear more from you: what is your greatest concern about immigration, and what would you most like to see change?

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 03: Progressive Income Tax

  U just wana tax us more

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  Haha, I promise I’m not sitting at home dreaming up new ways to tax you! 😂 Quite the opposite. Under the wider proposals, you would receive a Universal Standard Income and employee National Insurance would be abolished completely. So although the income tax rates may look higher when viewed on their own, they’re only one part of the picture. The aim is for ordinary working people to have more money in their pockets, not less. Thanks for the comment though — it’s exactly the sort of challenge I want people to raise!

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 02: Abolish Employee National Insurance

  I think we would lose loads of money

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  Thank you for taking the time to comment. I completely understand your concern — abolishing employee National Insurance would mean losing a significant source of government revenue. My hope is that the new, streamlined income tax system would help make up that shortfall. At the same time, removing NI would leave working people with more money in their pockets — money that can be spent in shops, businesses and the wider economy. It’s a balance, and your concern is a perfectly valid one. Thank you for raising it.

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 01: Universal Standard Income

  I love the idea of this!!! We gotta do it asap!!

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  Thank you so much for taking the time to read the proposal and leave a comment — I really appreciate it. That’s exactly why I’ve started this journey. I’m just one person with a set of ideas, but hopefully, if enough people join me, get involved and find proposals here that they believe in, we can start building something together. Real change has to start somewhere. If enough of us want it, perhaps we really can make it happen. Thank you for being part of the journey.

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 08: Universal Healthcare Through Compulsory Insurance

  Thanks for replying to my comment. I still don’t get it. Will the UK save money by introducing compulsory insurance? If not, what is the point of doing this?

  Submitted by Anonymous

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  Thanks for coming back to me. It’s a fair question, so let me put it as simply as I can. The UK currently spends roughly £230–£250 billion a year on healthcare. Under my proposal, I would expect total healthcare spending to remain in broadly that sort of range, but the way we pay for and provide healthcare would change. So the main argument I’m making is not simply that Britain will spend less money. My argument is that we should get better healthcare for the money we already spend. Everyone would still be guaranteed healthcare. Nobody would be left without treatment because they were poor, ill or unable to afford insurance. The government would pay or subsidise insurance for people who could not reasonably afford it. The big difference is that patients would no longer be dependent on one main provider. Different hospitals and healthcare providers would have to compete for patients. If one provider offers shorter waiting times, better treatment or a better service, patients should be able to choose it. And that is really the point of the proposal. Competition drives up standards. If providers know that patients can go elsewhere, there is much more pressure on them to improve. I want hospitals competing to offer the best care, the shortest waits and the best outcomes — while keeping the principle that healthcare is available to everybody. So, in short: this isn’t primarily about spending less. It’s about getting more for what Britain already spends.

  Response status: Addressed

• Proposal 08: Universal Healthcare Through Compulsory Insurance

  How much would the new system cost? And how does that compare to the current health budget?

  Submitted by Anonymous

  Response from Jamie Foster — Creator

  31 August 2026

  You have identified an important distinction. The £60–90bn figure associated with this proposal is not intended to represent Britain’s total healthcare expenditure; it represents an indicative government subsidy envelope within the proposed compulsory-insurance architecture. For comparison, the UK currently spends approximately £345bn a year on healthcare across government and non-government sources, equivalent to around £4,966 per person and 11.4% of GDP. Government currently finances approximately £280bn of that expenditure. Comparable universal or compulsory-insurance systems do not demonstrate that changing the financing model automatically reduces the total cost of healthcare. Germany spends around 12.3% of GDP, Switzerland 11.8%, France around 11.5%, and the Netherlands around 10%. For that reason, I would propose an indicative long-term national healthcare expenditure envelope of approximately 11–12% of GDP rather than claiming an arbitrary saving from structural reform. The objective of Proposal 08 is therefore not simply to spend less, but to change how healthcare is funded, create universal guaranteed coverage, introduce a clearer relationship between funding and provision, protect people who cannot afford insurance, and improve efficiency and capacity. The precise level of government subsidy required — currently estimated within a £60–90bn envelope — would require detailed actuarial modelling before implementation. I regard that as an area requiring further development, and this challenge will inform the next version of the proposal.

  Response status: Addressed

Public Contributions

Ideas submitted for consideration

Manifesto 1.1 is intended to be challenged, discussed and improved. This section publishes substantive ideas contributed by members of the public for consideration alongside the original programme. Publication does not automatically mean adoption into Manifesto 1.1; it means an idea has been judged worthy of open examination and debate.

Have Your Say

Challenge Manifesto 1.1

Set out the flaw, the risk, the missing evidence or the better alternative. Name and email are optional — the argument matters more than who is making it.