7 May 2015
Election pledges are out of hand
by John Watson
You see it with soldiers. Often those who win battles by their very ruthlessness and aggression turn out to be thoughtful, tolerant and decent individuals when you meet them in private. It is just that when fighting they have to set their better nature aside and subjugate compassion and judgement to the need to win. Something rather similar happens to politicians in an election campaign. They start making pledges which have nothing whatever to do with the public interest and are purely intended to lift their vote – often by appealing to the baser instincts of the electorate. The 2015 general election is no exception and we have got well past the stage where statements by the protagonists can be justified on rational grounds.
Take, as an example, Mr Cameron’s promise to introduce legislation preventing the new government from raising income tax, national insurance or VAT. Of course the Tories have said that they will not raise taxes and I’m sure they mean it. Still to bar themselves from doing so is folly. Suppose they cannot make the arithmetic work in any other way? Suppose that there is a sudden need for funds?
Harold Macmillan, when asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow the government off course, is said to have replied: “Events, my dear boy, events” and history certainly bears him out. William Pitt’s attempt to pay off the national debt by way of a sinking fund hit the rocks when we had to finance war with revolutionary France. It would be a brave man who bet that no cash-consuming emergency would occur in the next five years. And, if one does and taxes needed to be raised, a measure designed to win over a few fleeting voters who do not trust politicians could turn into a major obstacle.
However, the giving of foolish financial promises is not confined to Mr Cameron. Both the main parties have gone on endlessly about how they will protect certain expenditure, particularly expenditure on the National Health Service. The need to demonstrate commitment here has totally eclipsed intelligent debate. Is it really right that visits to a doctor should be entirely free? Yes, perhaps for those on benefits but what about those who could easily afford to stump up £20 a time? Would a charge make them think twice before they wasted the doctor’s time, and if they pay for advice are they more likely to take it? Surely, yes and yes again. Then if there are changes which can be made and which will save money, should we make them or should we merely say (bowing humbly towards the nearest hospital as we do so) “No, certainly not. That is protected. We don’t need to save money there at all”?
No one denies that the National Health Service is going through crisis and change – public services do as the habits of the population which they serve mutate. Lots of things will be different in ten years time. Consultations will often take place over skype. Some of the more physical nursing jobs may be done by robots. No doubt there are lots of other things as well. Whether the new system will cost more or less than the system which we currently have it is hard to say but, if there are savings, surely the government investment should be cut and those savings should be employed in other areas? To promise that the expenditure on the health service be safeguarded, regardless of whether as good a service could be provided more cheaply, is fatuous. The right pledge is that we will continue to pay what is needed to provide a good and affordable health service but that doesn’t sound so good on the hustings, does it?
Once the election is over, some of the sillier pledges may simply get forgotten. Let’s hope so anyway because if the reality is that foolish pledges given at election time bind the country for the next five years we either need to breed a more canny race of politicians or we need another model for democracy.
