Nope that's pretty much it. You're voting not only what they say they're going to do, but also on your confidence that they'll even attempt to do it.
No, but at the same time, if you put something in your manifesto and then try to pass a bill through Parliament to enact it, the House of Lords are not supposed to vote against it (the so-called Salisbury Convention). In reality, it's not so black-and-white - it's just a convention and not a formal or legal rule.
A wall in the sea FFS... What could possibly be difficult about that?? Errrr...one of the world's busiest shipping lanes is a good start.
Remember when Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson proposed building a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland? Over the deepest bit of water? The bit we dumped a load of WWII ordnance in? Ah, good times.
Stopping asylum seekers from illegally entering the country is easy. Admit that our economy can't survive without immigration. They all know this, but very few say it in public because it doesn't grab any attention. Drop the farcical and demonstrable lie that "if you make it hard for people to come here then they won't want to come here". It doesn't work, it never worked, and it will never work. Process the claims as quickly and efficiently - edit: and fairly - as you can. If you're eligible to be here then hurry up and get tf in, start earning a living so we can start taxing it. If you're not eligible to be here, then... well... off you pop, back through the door you came in - oh, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. Finally, you establish safe and legal routes to come here and claim asylum. You don't need to risk the lives of you and your family on a dangerous sea crossing in a dodgy little blow-up raft that's packed full of more people than it can handle, and you don't need to pay your life savings to some AK47-toting scumbag who'd happily put a bullet in your face if you gave them any trouble. You can be as tough as you like on immigration, you can have policies as strict as you you want for eligibility, merit, qualifications, etc... I might disagree with you on the details, but in principle I've no objections to restrictions on immigration. The objections I do have, however, start to raise their indignant little heads when we start treating people like animals. Indefinitely detaining them. Cramming them into squalid facilities we wouldn't subject our worst criminals to. Stuffing them onto disease-ridden barges. Threatening to send them 7000 miles across the planet at an obscene cost. We're not "tough on immigration", we're tough on people who migrate here. Also, as a side note: you'll notice I'm not claiming that Labour are the solution or have all the answers. They're making the right noises on getting claims processed, but the Blair/Brown incarnation of Labour was incredibly hostile to immigration. Not as bad as this current lot, granted, but they're going to have to do a hell of a lot of work to earn my trust.
Don't forget the tunnel between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, complete with an interchange under the Isle of Man https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...d-to-link-three-irish-sea-tunnels-23-02-2021/
I think that's pretty much how my pie chart looked. If I wasn't already a Labour member already it would only have caused me to doubt meself.
