Showing posts with label commitment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commitment. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Conservative commitments - 2, 2 fails



As a bonus for the first day (and knowing I'll be away for a few), here's a second:

The key to understanding this commitment is that although it’s quite generous compared to Labour, it was utterly unfunded. The Conservatives produced this one when the NHS began to be an issue in the campaign but gave no information about where the money would come from. A party claiming to be fiscally responsible should probably have plans for finding £8bn. Most people in this country like the idea of the NHS being better-funded, but an open and honest politician would have explained what would lose out.
By not even mentioning who the planned losers would be (if there was a plan at all), the Conservatives failed to be honest about how budgeting works. They gave the emotional impression that they could fund everything worthwhile, but did it through being irresponsible.
It’s also important to note that the plan for the NHS which suggested that it needed £8bn more was already pretty harsh, anticipating deep cuts (efficiency savings of a scale that have never been achieved and that are required on top of ‘savings’ already seen) in services.
£8bn in funding does not address the structural problems the Conservatives introduced, nor the massive long-term issues that the NHS faces. No mention was made of the Conservatives’ attachment to PFI, the system that is bankrupting hospitals across the country.

Conservative commitments -1, fail



I intend to make this a regular series of posts examining commitments the Conservative (and Unionist) Party made before the election, including those outside of the manifesto. I was unimpressed with their offerings and decided to go through them one by one. I haven't put them in much of an order.


As Parliament is able to change all laws, having both executive and legislative power, a law limiting Parliament is a pointless waste of time. This commitment was a cynical campaign stunt that says more about how willing the party is to deceive the electorate because the promise implies that it is a meaningful commitment. An open and honest politician would never have promised something that is a waste of time (and therefore money).
       Additionally, this pledge does not refer to all taxes. As a political statement, it is quite limited, because it leaves plenty of room for ‘stealth taxes’, which were heavily criticised by the Conservatives when Gordon Brown used them, or for other tax rises. As a bold statement, though, it helps give the general emotional impression of a party that is more against tax rises than other parties. 
 It's for effect, not impact, and is all style and no substance. I count that as a failure, although some fans of politics love that sort of thing.

Taking stock of a public figure: market-maker or made by market failure?

       I’m torn over whether Gary’s Economics, and Gary Stevenson himself, are a good thing for or a symptom of the problems society faces...