More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
In the same way the earlier part of the election campaign was defined by who was not standing, the manifestos have, in some cases, been defined by what they don't say as much as by what they do.
The Conservatives are clearly still carrying the scars of 2017 when Theresa May got into trouble about plans for social care that led to damaging headlines about the "dementia tax".
So, if the party has any plans for reform and ending the current situation where many families are forced to sell their home to pay for care, you won’t find them in the manifesto.
There is talk that a Tory government would seek to establish a cross-party group to examine the issue - a classic way of kicking something awkward into the long grass.
Neither was there any reference to the reintroduction of grammar schools, an article of faith for many Conservative supporters and activists.
Why? Possibly because the leadership recognises it too remains a highly contentious issue and why risk sparking a debate when it is confined to a small number of areas?
It would also run the risk of diverting attention away from the Conservative's key election education pledge which is to level the playing field in terms of opportunity and pump more money into the system.
The manifesto points out that while talent is evenly spread in this country, "opportunity is not" and "as Conservatives, we believe absolutely in equality of opportunity – the idea that every child, in every part of the country, should have a fair chance".
As to Labour, it went in the opposite direction with its manifesto, which contained so many pledges and giveaways that it was the equivalent of a political Black Friday.
It did not so much shake the money tree as shake a whole forest, with economists putting the price of implementing its programme at an eye-watering £82bn a year.
Radical it was; as were the costs.
With just under three weeks to go before polling day, one party seems determined to play it safe; another to throw caution to the wind.
