Greetings, blog readers. Well, it looks as though spring is here at last with the smell of cut grass, the tulips in full bloom and ah yes, that funny light in the sky. Nothing like a few rays of sunshine to see the beautiful people of this fair isle home into view and discard a layer of clothing. Then again, it is probably that fatalistic British attitude of making hay while, you know the rest, in the knowledge that when summer is here it will be accompanied by the typical seasonal weather of torrential rain.
So what's been going on in the world? Well, we've had Easter when I trust you all remembered the true meaning of the occasion. That is to indulge a little on ovular shaped confectionery and forget about work for a few days! Apart from the aforementioned E word, it was another E word that dominated the week's media coverage and this will be the focus of this latest blog.
I am of course referring to the calling of the General Election, as approved by the Queen earlier this week. Over the coming weeks, all three party leaders will be travelling the length of the country kissing babies, reading to small children and watching other children draw pictures of them, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their friends for the day are in no position to influence the election as they have yet to reach the age of majority. And if that doesn't work, the leaders can always wheel out their secret weapons, namely their wives (so not that secret then) to vouch for their good character, faults and all.
None of these photo opportunities, however, will really tell the wider electorate much about what they really need to know, which is what leader stands for, what their party's priorities will be and what solutions they have to the current doom and gloom enveloping the nation, courtesy of the usual media scare mongering. Politicians are famously evasive when it comes to being open about their policies and principles, but at a time when there is so much apathy and distrust of their profession, this surely should be the determining factor in who wins the election rather than who wears the smartest suit, has the highest IQ or is covered in the least sweat after their morning run.
So, my friends, I have found salvation in the form of a section on the BBC Election 2010 website which outlines what each party's policies and approaches are on the core matters that will influence voters' decision making on polling day. I have copied and pasted the main points below, along with my own take on which party seems to be most on the money in each case. So let's get down to business.
Crime
Conservative policy: Replace police authorities with a directly-elected police commissioner; strengthen stop and search powers to tackle knife crime; give police the power to publicly identify offenders; change the law so that anyone acting "reasonably" to stop a crime or apprehend a criminal is not arrested or prosecuted; allow the police to use instant sanctions to deal with anti-social behaviour; reduce the burden of stop and search procedures; increase prison capacity above Labour’s plans, in order to scrap the early release scheme; allow courts to specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain offenders.
Labour: Highlight 40% drop in overall crime since 1997; mandatory assessment of every parent of every child aged 10-15 who is under consideration for an Asbo; automatic parenting orders on those whose teenage children breach an Asbo; tougher sentences for knife crime; portable weapon scanners for the police; highlight 15,000 increase in police numbers since 1997; pledge to protect frontline police from budget cuts in 2011-2013; highlight schemes to reduce police bureaucracy; oppose elected police authorities or commissioners; add 15,000 prison places by 2014 through the UK–s largest ever prison-building programme.
Liberal Democrats: Increase police numbers by 3,000 over five years; scrap identity card scheme; make police authorities directly elected, with increased powers; annual fitness tests for police officers; replace form-filling with new technology; create a National Crime Reduction Agency to spread best practice through the force; review police officers’ terms and conditions; seek advice from Law Commission and Plain English Campaign to make paperwork more simple.
My opinion: The Conservative approach is very much remaining true to its core values of being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. At a time when the media reports that Britain is engulfed by serious social meltdown and where victims' rights are often overlooked, the Tories' realise that the promise of stricter enforcement where laws have been transgressed is an obvious vote winner. There are certain elements of their policy that sounds good in theory and I would not object to courts being granted permission to specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain "category A" offences. An increase in prison capacity would also aid the Conservative hard line approach on offending, although the question of how it would fund this increase is not immediately apparent. Law and order is invariably one of the Tories' stronger areas and for those that favour the Draconian approach to punishing offenders rather than trying to rehabilitate them, you can see that this manifesto will tick a few boxes for them.
The Labour policy by comparison seems quite a weak and tired blueprint and I would be concerned by their staunch highlighting of the overall crime rate being greatly reduced. Mark Twain was infamously distrusting of statistics and there is much evidence to suggest that crime statistics in this country are not a true reflection of the reality. There are plenty of examples of unreported crime, particularly where the crime was of a violent nature, due to the fear of retribution. There are also examples of petty crime that the police are seemingly powerless to prevent from turning into more serious incidents of crime, particularly where anti-social behavioural episodes are concerned. The parental measures concerning children with ASBOs is worthy of respect up to a point, but there is an element of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted to their implementation.
Of the three parties, I find myself most aligned to the Liberal Democrat model. They have been clear in their opposition to the flawed national identity card scheme, which offers little prevention to terrorism but which is an intrusion into people's civil liberties. The rest of their policies may on the surface appear slightly wishy-washy, but the proposed change in governance so far as police authorities are concerned would hopefully see an understanding that with greater powers comes greater responsibility. The public feel more assured if police are able to patrol the streets rather than be sitting in an office and so the measures that the Lib Dems mention which are designed to save time filling in forms should enable that to happen.
VERDICT: The Lib Dems appear to offer the best package.
Crime
Conservative policy: Increase health spending in real terms over a parliament; replace ’process’ targets, such as maximum time before seeing a cancer specialist, with ’outcome’ targets, such as number of people dying from cancer; more management freedom for NHS providers; put performance data online; allow patients to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards; implement a ’payment for results’ system throughout NHS; link GPs’ pay to results; cut the cost of NHS administration by a third; create an independent NHS board; end mixed-sex wards; increase the number of single rooms in hospitals; allow retirees to protect their homes from being sold to fund residential care costs by paying a one-off premium of £8,000 at retirement.
Labour: Protect frontline NHS from spending cuts; ensure all people who suspect they have cancer get test results within one week; guarantee cancer patients will see a specialist within two weeks of diagnosis; offer everyone between 40 and 74 free, five-yearly NHS health check; guarantee NHS patients the right to wait no longer than 18 weeks from the moment of GP referral to hospital treatment; establish a "National Care Service" for elderly and vulnerable people, with funding arrangements decided by a Commission; provide free personal care indefinitely for those in highest need; meet elderly people's care costs after they have spent two years in residential care.
Liberal Democrats: Replace Strategic Health Authorities with democratically elected local health boards with power to prevent hospital closures; reduce number of health targets; introduce "patient contracts" specifying what patients can expect from NHS; make it easier to switch GP; allow patients to register at more than one practice; reform NHS dental contracts to encourage dentists back into the NHS; extend access to end-of-life services and hospices; more cost-effective purchasing of drugs, including greater use of generic drugs; payments for over-65s who require personal care such as help with dressing based on need, not ability to pay.
My opinion: While I think that it is right that Conservatives' should move away from the process targets that are mentioned, I'm not sure that their favoured 'outcome' is necessarily going to be a helpful exercise, or that it will provide an accurate indication of competency. Obviously, the mortality rate is the only way of showing how effective the health service is in carrying out its work, but not all deaths are as a result of the role of the health service. Admittedly if a correct diagnosis is not made at an early stage, or if a response is not fast enough, then these are examples of standards falling short. But there are certain uncontrollables too. If a patient themself does not seek out medical advice at an early stage, then there are occasions when a condition may be caught too late in the day. The Tories' manifesto seems obsessed by results and while I can understand this to a certain degree, I feel uneasy about people's livelihoods being affected by "results" that could be beyond their control. The Tories do win some points for identifying administration costs as a saving, although the drawback to this will mean that less admin staff will mean that frontline staff will have to spend more time on admin duties when they could be supporting patients.
There are some elements of Labour's policy that make sense and I certainly applaud their proposals concerning cancer care. Pretty much everyone in this country has been affected by this wretched disease at some point during their life and if any steps can be taken, albeit small, to minimise death and suffering from this scourge then this action should be commended. Their policies in supporting the most vulnerable people in society is also something that I admire. I feel that marginalised groups, particularly those with mental health related problems come low down on the Tories' list of priorities and yet many of the people that use health services in this country fall into that category. I'd rather the health service is driven by people instead of targets, and although the health service has not been without blemish under Labour's watch, their commitment to improving it is evident.
The Lib Dems have a few interesting ideas without really hitting anyone with a killer policy on health. I do certainly support their attitude in reducing health targets, which appears to be the polar opposite to the Conservative attitude on the matter. It is also good to see that the party would take a stand in supporting elderly people from poor backgrounds in making sure they could access appropriate personal care. There are certainly numerous examples of people that cannot access their family network for such care and who often die in squalor. The idea of a "patient contract" sounds like it has been borrowed from other industries and while it sounds good in theory, in reality what a patient should expect from the NHS is quite simple. Receive top quality care in order to aid their recovery as swiftly as possible. That doesn't really require a piece of paper for the message to be conveyed, does it?
VERDICT: The Conservatives target driven attitude could potentially do more harm to the NHS, rather than make it more accountable for its performance. Despite its problems under the Labour administration, the present governing party appear to understand its failings and realise that using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut is not necessary.
Education
Conservative: Allow charities, parent and teacher groups, and co-operatives to establish Academies – schools which are state funded but independent of local authority control; allow every existing school – including primaries – to seek Academy status; create a "Pupil Premium", giving more money to schools that teach the poorest children; raise teacher training entry requirements; allow state schools to offer the same international exams as private schools; make it easier for teachers to use "reasonable force" to deal with violence; give head teachers power to pay "good" teachers more; scrap exclusions’ appeals process; create 10,000 extra university places in 2010 and 100,000 additional apprenticeships and training places a year; give bonuses for early repayment of student loans.
Labour: Protect schools budget from spending cuts; continue roll-out of Academies independent of local authority control; introduce "Local Pupil Premium", forcing local authorities to pass on extra funding to schools teaching the poorest pupils; encourage universities to set Academies up as well as private organisations; guarantee extra maths and English tuition for all 7 to 11 year olds who fall behind; encourage comprehensive schools to pool budgets in school "chains", allowing stronger schools to raise standards in weaker schools; introduce school "report cards", which would rate schools on a wide range of data, including exam performance, behaviour and parents' and children's views of a school; consider ways to widen access to universities, while retaining tuition fees; create 20,000 extra undergraduate university places in 2010-11 and 400,000 apprenticeships by 2020; introduce a renewable "licence to teach" for teachers; guarantee a place in education or training for all 16 and 17 year olds.
Lib Dems: Replace Academies with "Sponsor Managed Schools", to be run by educational charities and private providers, but under local authority control, not Whitehall; provide £2.5bn for a "Pupil Premium" for schools teaching the poorest pupils; replace National Curriculum with a Minimum Curriculum Entitlement to allow teachers more flexibility; create a General Diploma made up of GCSEs, A-Levels and vocational qualifications; create an Education Standards Authority to monitor school standards independent of government; increase the apprenticeship numbers, and places on university and vocational higher education courses; scrap university tuition fees over six years.
My opinion: There are a few gimmicks in the Conservative education policy, which generally seem as though they will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots in the education system. The "Academy" idea seems like a way of challenging authority but for no discernible reason. The "Pupil Premium" proposal would seem to go somewhat against the grain so far as the general Tory education policy is concerned, but on the surface, it would seem like a welcome move. Schools with the least affluent pupils will not improve without suitable investment and so this seems like a sensible way of supporting this. There are 1 or 2 good ideas in amongst a sea of impractical drivel. On the plus side, the extra 100,000 apprenticeships and allowing teachers to use reasonable force where it is necessary. Not every child that leaves school can go to university, or indeed wants to and so apprenticeships offer a meaningful and rewarding alternative. Likewise, no-one would dispute that teachers should be allowed to defend themselves when they are in physical danger from a teenager that is bigger and stronger than them.
There are definite flaws in the Conservative education manifesto though. Raising teaching entry qualifications at a time when attracting people to the profession is on the downturn does not seem like a necessary move. Teachers are usually not incompetent because of their qualifications but because of their inward looking attitude. A more sensible idea would be for teachers to go on a "refresher" after being in the job for a certain period of time. Giving teachers power to pay "good" teachers more could surely create a divisive dynamic in the staff room and it's also questionable how this could work in legislation. If 2 teachers are teaching the same subject and with the same duties, with neither being head of their department, then surely by law they have to be paid the same salary? Scrapping an exclusions appeal process sounds like dangerous ground to be covering as that sends out the message that authority is always right even when it's wrong. I also feel that the Tories, in keeping with other parties, should be focusing less on increasing university intake when the clearance system in universities is already too relaxed, resulting in courses being oversubscribed and also impacting on the drop-out rate.
Labour's commitment to apprenticeships is encouraging, and they look like they are setting a realistic figure of 400,000 more apprenticeships by 2020. As with the Tories, they support the Local Pupil Premium scheme, which no doubt means there will be squabbles as to who thought up the idea first and who copied the other. Of the rest of their ideas, there are not too many striking, stand-out policies other than the pledge for all 16 and 17 year olds to be guaranteed a place in education or training. I've heard previously that Labour wish for all children to compulsorily remain in education until 18 and I don't think this is a good idea as there are some pupils better served in finding their way in the world at 16 rather than remaining in school and disrupting the more adult dynamic that is common in sixth form. Overall, the Labour education manifesto appears rather dull and anaemic in its content.
Perhaps because they realise that they have only a minimal chance of bringing their plans into fruition, the Liberal Democrats have come up with some refreshing and innovative proposals in their manifesto. I think it is sensible for their proposed "Sponsor Managed Schools" to be managed at local authority level rather than by national Government and this should ensure that the type of education being delivered is meeting local requirements and demands. The abolition of the National Curriculum is not something that the 2 main parties have really discussed before, but I do know that some teachers feel they are constrained by the Curriculum's requirements and so if there is an alternative that give a teacher more creative freedom which is able to lead to more productive lessons, then I think this would be a bold, but undeniably a positive move. Having an authority that is independent of Government that is set up to review school standards also seems like a good idea, as this should mean that there is less potential for failings to be covered up. I applaud the Lib Dems' commitment to more vocational courses, as these test the transferrable skills that employers are looking for more than traditional, exam driven qualifications do. Whilst I have reservations about expanding the university network too far, I feel that the Lib Dems would help get more students into university on the basis of academic ability rather than wealth, and so again, they score well.
VERDICT: The Lib Dems' education strategy, at least on paper, appears innovative and radical, and is focused around nurturing students at all stages of their development, while giving teachers more creative freedom. In the cold light of day, if they did somehow get into power then bringing these ideas to fruition could be the tough part, but their ideas seem more robust than the tired strategies listed by the other 2 main parties.
Family
Conservative: Let parents share maternity leave; recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system by 2015; ensure that the tax credit system does not penalise couples by doubling the Working Tax Credit for couples who live together; focus SureStart on the neediest families; provide 4,200 more Sure Start health visitors; support free nursery care for pre-school children, from a range of private and public providers; extend the right to request flexible working to every parent with a child under the age of 18.
Labour: Extend free nursery places for 3-4 year-olds from 12.5 hours to 15 hours; provide two extra outreach workers for 1,500 SureStart community support centres in most disadvantaged areas; provide nursery places for 20,000 two-year-olds in the most deprived areas by 2012; fund two parenting advisers in every local authority; provide £73 million to help low income families access childcare; oppose the reintroduction of the married couples tax allowance; continue to provide nine months of paid maternity leave, but no extension to 12 months; give parents of one- and two-year-olds an extra £4 a week in Child Tax Credit for each child from 2012.
Lib Dems: Allow parents to share maternity leave; extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just parents and carers; fix the payments of tax credits for six months at a time so that payments are stable and predictable.
My opinion: This is not really a subject that will massively influence how I vote in the election, but for those with children, I can see that there are potential carrots offered up by each party. The Conservatives favour the traditional family model and this is emphasised in their policies, which they no doubt feel will be an antidote to the current "broken Britain". The tax credit system is likely to be appealing to families where both partners work. The right to extend flexible working to all parents is also going to be popular, although I can see that this will be challenging to put into practice in certain professions.
The Labour Party attitude would seem somewhat at odds with the more traditionalist stance of the Conservatives given that they are opposed to the reintroduction of the married couples' tax allowance. Their approach is geared to the times in which we live. As much as marriage remains a sacred institution to many, it no longer is the be-all and end-all for others, particularly those that have experienced at first hand the failures post-ceremonial vows. The keeping of the maternity pay at 9 months rather than increasing to 12 is something that I would expect to be under review at a later date, as and when the economic picture improves.
The Lib Dems seem to follow similar lines, except that they are wanting flexible working arrangements to be extended to all employees, regardless of whether they have dependants. This sounds reasonable in principle, but it is questionable as to whether it is entirely necessary other than for purposes of equality. What benefit ultimately is there to an employer in letting its single men work from home in the evening just so they can pop to the gym in the afternoon? Allowing maternity care to be shared seems a reasonable idea, even if one of the partners would normally be offering paternity care instead.
VERDICT: No-one really stands out on this issue and there are a few similarities on policies. For people that favour the traditional family model, there is more on offer from the Tories, whilst Labour seems to be striking a balance between what is helpful to families and what is helpful to the economy.
Time has beaten me tonight and there are several more issues which are likely to be key factors in the election. I hope to examine these in more detail in my next blog and hopefully this can educate us all, myself included, as to who would be the best party to cast a vote for on 6 May.
