The missing policies in those party manifestos

You will have no trouble in finding any of the above in the parties' manifestos which were launched this week.

But is there anything about North Korea?

It is a theory of the BBC political reporter Nick Robinson that the things which dominate news agendas in the years following elections either do not appear in the party manifestos, or are little discussed, if at all, during the election campaigns.

In retrospect, the most significant part of the Conservatives' 2015 manifesto was the commitment to an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.

It had the appearance of a bit of an afterthought, a foregone conclusion which would put to bed arguments in the Tory ranks and shoot Ukip's fox.

A major obsession of the campaign, particularly in the media, was the prospect of a coalition, based on the assumption, fuelled by inaccurate opinion polls, which pointed to no one party securing an overall majority. Traditional factors like the economy and leadership were also prominent.

Yet the referendum commitment has had repercussions which are massive and long-lasting.

The Tories' 1987 manifesto contained this innocent-looking phrase: "We will legislate in the first session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer community charge."

It was a tax everybody aged over 18, except the mentally ill and elderly living in homes and hospitals, would have to pay.

This pledge was a ticking policy time bomb which nobody noticed. Margaret Thatcher waltzed in to Downing Street for a third term of office, unaware that she had already written her political death warrant in her very own manifesto.

When the time came to make good on the pledge, the Tory press were cheerleaders for this "fairer" system. It was a disaster. For the new system to work, councils had to keep tabs on virtually everybody, and get them to pay up.

Mrs Thatcher doggedly continued to call it the community charge, but the public had a different name for it - the poll tax. Large numbers evaded payment, or simply refused to pay. Mrs Thatcher stuck to her guns but her party became increasingly worried about the electoral damage of the unpopular measure. Ultimately the Tories' ditched Mrs Thatcher and ditched the poll tax.

Then there are the unexpected events which become the chief issues of a party's parliamentary term. In the 2001 general election, nobody voted for Britain to join America in invading Iraq. In 2005, politicians and voters were unaware that the banks would crash spectacularly, plunging Britain into an era of austerity.

The migration crisis brought boat people from the Middle East and Africa, fleeing strife or seeking better lives, into Europe in their hundreds of thousands and presenting challenges to nations, including the United Kingdom, whose governmental policies, such as they are on such matters, have lagged behind the realities of the situation, and have essentially been made up as they have gone along.

So what are the Policies That Are Not There which will have to be cobbled together in the aftermath of the 2017 general election?

Here is a scenario for the next few years, and it is not a fanciful one.

North Korea continues its ballistic missile testing, amid blood-curdling threats and boasts of its developing nuclear capabilities.

The world continues to hope that it is all bluster and bluff. It is the modern equivalent of the 1930s, when nations crossed their fingers about Hitler.

Then there is an unmistakeable change. It becomes clear beyond dispute that North Korea has an intercontinental missile system which gives it the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States.

This is not a difficult prediction to make. It is what North Korea is working towards and unless something is done will one day achieve.

In those circumstances - and this is another prediction - the United States will not let it stand. There will be an ultimatum. And then when the North Koreans refuse to back down, there will be American military action.

Here the predictions all run out. That is because the consequences of an American military strike on North Korea are unpredictable (to say the least).

Donald Trump, if he is still in office, will be blamed for being a warmonger. In fact the road to war will have been laid by previous presidents whose lack of an effective response has allowed a regime of paranoid despots to acquire nuclear weapons and then threaten half the globe with them.

So... what line do the party manifestos take on dealing with North Korea?

The Tories have no manifesto policy. Nothing appears in Labour's manifesto either. Lib Dems? Another blank.

North Korea is a small country, far, far away, so maybe here in Britain we think we can forget about it.

But it is may well be that at some stage in the next Parliament, or maybe the one after that, North Korea will dominate debate.

And the party manifestos haven't even mentioned the place.