As usual the Election Campaing looks as if it will miss the point. The real challenges are to identify the problems and then look at how to resolve them. Much of this relates to the mechanisms by which government operates.
For example we are heading for bed number cuts in Birmingham (yes about 100 more beds to be cut on the current info I have). This is driven by the incompetence of the governmental structures rather than any shortage of finance.
Similarly the Criminal Justice system is in a bureaucratic muddle - although some aspects of this are getting sorted.
One of the debates that misses the point by the furthest is that on migration. Most of the problems that arise from immigration result from people who are illegal immigrants abusing the processes. For example there were the Chinese Cockle Pickers.
It is not that we need lots more laws. What we need are laws that work.
These are Labour's pledges:
"Your family better off"
The problem with this one is Labour know they are in a financial mess. This has not yet impacted people generally, but will. The inefficiency and corruption in Labour's mechanisms of governance are undermining prosperity. Labour have created a situation in which a company can be sued if it gives an employee unpaid leave for any reason.
"Your family treated better and faster"
Er ... MRSA, fewer beds etc.
"Your child achieving more"
This year 9% of schools have discipline problems. Last year it was 5%. Even taking into account some statistical error that is a deteriorating situation.
"Your country's borders protected"
This is their campaign on "ID Cards" which will not apply to people until they have been in the UK for at least 3 months. What they are not doing is dealing with the real issues. Instead they are raising Chimarae. Whether people will see through this or not is not clear.
"Your community safer"
Pull the other one - look at their record - particularly in terms of violent crime which is what worries people most.
"Your children with the best start"
With the discipline problems that exist in 9% of schools I think not.
It is interesting that two of these "pledges" relate to school education.
For example we are heading for bed number cuts in Birmingham (yes about 100 more beds to be cut on the current info I have). This is driven by the incompetence of the governmental structures rather than any shortage of finance.
Similarly the Criminal Justice system is in a bureaucratic muddle - although some aspects of this are getting sorted.
One of the debates that misses the point by the furthest is that on migration. Most of the problems that arise from immigration result from people who are illegal immigrants abusing the processes. For example there were the Chinese Cockle Pickers.
It is not that we need lots more laws. What we need are laws that work.
These are Labour's pledges:
"Your family better off"
The problem with this one is Labour know they are in a financial mess. This has not yet impacted people generally, but will. The inefficiency and corruption in Labour's mechanisms of governance are undermining prosperity. Labour have created a situation in which a company can be sued if it gives an employee unpaid leave for any reason.
"Your family treated better and faster"
Er ... MRSA, fewer beds etc.
"Your child achieving more"
This year 9% of schools have discipline problems. Last year it was 5%. Even taking into account some statistical error that is a deteriorating situation.
"Your country's borders protected"
This is their campaign on "ID Cards" which will not apply to people until they have been in the UK for at least 3 months. What they are not doing is dealing with the real issues. Instead they are raising Chimarae. Whether people will see through this or not is not clear.
"Your community safer"
Pull the other one - look at their record - particularly in terms of violent crime which is what worries people most.
"Your children with the best start"
With the discipline problems that exist in 9% of schools I think not.
It is interesting that two of these "pledges" relate to school education.
Comments
There will not be a proposal to reduce the limit at which people can go into pubs on their own and buy alcohol. At the moment it is lawful for a 16 / 17 year old to drink alcohol purchased by an adult with a dinner in any event.
I would not support reducing the going to pub age as you would get 12 year olds in pubs. The current limit means that it is unusual to get people below 16 buying beer in pubs.
The "pledges" are supposed to relate to the future not the past. The past record of the Government is a useful guide as to what they may manage in the future, however. Still we did have the highest ever monthly governmental deficit recently.
Labour - "living on borrowed time"
However, Labour are claiming that in the future "your family [will be] better off"
Where are the tax pledges this time. We are calling for a higher rate on earnings over 100K.
Let's not argue about tax - let's discuss services. The Tories repeat their mantra about '66 tax rises since 1997' because they want people to forget that taxes are used to provide services. Labour - and the LibDems - need to keep reminding the public that tax cuts will mean cuts in services.
And as for 'your family better off,' the recent YouGov survey (which coincidentally gave Labour the narrowest lead in a long time) shows that people are gradually increasing their approval ratings for the government's performance and they are also trending upwards in their view of their family's immediate economic future.
We now face bed number cuts in Birmingham over the next two years through Labour's incompetence at controlling the civil service.
Just a thought.
On the subject of misbehaving school pupils, I can only refer back to my own school days in the dim and distant 1980s. If you misbehaved you were punished, the punishment proportional to the crime and frequently appropriate to it (e.g. dropping litter was punished with a few hours litter picking). Mind you, that was back in the days when if you were punished in school your parents were told and they punished you themselves, rather than finding the teacher who had set the punishment and beating seven bells out of them.
On the subject of making families better off, a friend made me aware to day that 6 billion pounds a year of means tested benefit goes unclaimed. Perhaps that could be addressed at some point?
Stephen: Each party has its set of proposals. Labour have a right to criticise the feasibility of our proposals. Similarly there will be debates as to the coherence of Labour's position.
The Lib Dem 10 point plan is here
A number of spending commitments there as well - six out of the ten expressly mention new programs which will cost money. I fear that the penny in the pound on the rich won't be enough, nor will scrapping the DTI and privatising the Post Office.
Realistically (and not wearing my usual red rosette), the LDs can't hope for power in their own right. If they are VERY lucky, they might unseat enough Labour MPs to hold the balance in a hung parliament. If unlucky, they could unseat enough to let Howard sneak into Number 10.
And Stephen - Labour kicked off the campaigning with a number of high-profile posters trumpeting the successes of the government - low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation. I'd like to see more policy analysis, but the media doesn't go for it in prime time any more, serious politics is pushed into late-night or Sunday lunchtime slots.
Bob says our pledges are vacuous
Mr Anonymous Labour Hack says that they are very expensive.
Incidentally the rate of a Local Income Tax would be decided locally, buy it would be collected by the Inland Revenue. The important thing is the decision as to the rate.
I think what I will do is to put in a post to debate the Lib Dem proposals.
The 10p (not 1p) on incomes over 100K is part of the funding package. I have seen the reconciled figures.
Of course pledges can be vacuous and expensive. A pledge to "take the environment seriously" means absolutely zilch to the electorate. what do Lib dems think other people are doing... joking about it...but equally, a pledge to put 10,000 more police on the streets is expensive... and in any event Labour have already created record numbers of police. Still no mention of the private sector and public services though, are you running away John, or haven't you read your Orange Book?
Despite that, Bob is right to point out that his and my views are not mutually exclusive.
I don't support everything that the government does and I occasionally try and look at things with a more objective eye. More importantly, I look at the whole package offered by the party and I still believe that Labour offers the best option for this country.
The advantage the net has as a medium of debate is that it is possible to reach a conclusion and identify where people differ either in their analysis of a situation or in their priorities.
Most TV debates never get past the first run around the block.
There are, in fact, substantial cost implications to some of the pledges. However, that has been costed out.
OK, what you are now saying is most of it is not vacuous, but you are arguing that one of the pledges is vacuous. NOt that I accept this, but that is what you seem to be saying.
In the mean time I am not aware of any proposals for further involvement of the private sector in public services.
I will accept then that you are criticising 2 of 10 the points as being vacuous. Not that I accept that they are, although they are comparatively non-specific.
Still not a majority.