OK so the manifestos haven't been published yet so this might be a bit pre-emptive but it seems to me that we are not getting any kind of leadership or 'vision' from our main party leaders:- no reason for us to vote for them, just endless negative, nitpicking reasons why we should not vote for their opponents.
So our choice at what is (they always are) the most important election in a generation, is who is the least worst?
Who will do a slightly less crap job than the other? I'm sorry but this is nowhere near good enough. We are a first world country; the 5th or 6th biggest global economy and a leading influencer in the world and what we're currently being offered is a choice between a party that will offer us a referendum on membership of the EU - but will then use it's massive influence to secure an 'in' vote regardless of whether it secures EU reform or not (it won't) - or a party that will throw endless money at the NHS because it has no other credible 'weapon' to use in its campaign given its appalling track record on education, foreign policy, the economy, employment, immigration, public spending etc. and won't even contemplate giving us a referendum on the EU even though most of us want one.
Obviously we should judge our political parties on their past records - what they promised against what they delivered. But equally obviously we are not doing so given that Labour remains ahead in the polls. And it remains ahead in the polls because it has created a big enough 'client state' (people who have no interest in a prosperous country in the long-term but whose current way of life depends on government hand-outs this week) to win it an election. That's a scary prospect and it is being compounded by the 'weaponisation' of the NHS which is being used to scare people into thinking that they might just have to pay for their healthcare in the future. Even though no-one is suggesting that this will be the case.
Labour, who privatised 5% of the NHS in its last term (whilst the Tories have added a further 2% to the outsourcing programme) are hinting that the Tories want to privatise the NHS and people basically 'hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest', or the facts in other words.
Anyway, you know all this shit. What you - or I - don't know is what the vision or the 'big idea' is. How our leaders see the future for the UK in a changing and challenging world. Maggie had 'Thatcherism', Tony had 'New Labour'; Dave has had a go over the past five years - 'in it together' 'localism', 'hard-working families' 'aspiration nation' but none has been followed through. None has been stuck to and therefore none has been effective. Any and all of them could have been effective if they'd been adhered to, but they weren't so that leaves Dave floundering.
There will no doubt be another along any day now, but given what's happened before it will be difficult to believe it will be followed through which makes it much less likely to be succeed.
Vision is not just about setting out a plan or an idea and then acting upon it. It is also, crucially, about getting people to buy in to it and helping to make it happen. If you take people with you, the whole thing gains momentum and it can become a national 'effort' involving both the public and private sectors, that is not only much more likely to succeed, but extremely difficult for the opposition to oppose. As Labour found out under Maggie, and the Tories found out under Blair.
Sadly this hasn't happened even though we were crying out for some kind of vision after the last Labour shambles. Dave would be miles ahead by now if only he'd stuck to a clear, simple, aspirational and consistent vision since he'd now be able to say how well we were doing against this vision in comparison with where we were in 2010. His 'long-term economic plan', whilst welcome, is not really a vision for the country as a whole and is therefore nowhere near as effective as if it were part of a broader vision.
Mr Miliband, by contrast, doesn't seem to have any idea of his vision for the UK but as I say it seems like he doesn't really need one in order to get elected by the forces of apathy or short-term self-interest. He doesn't need to take any risks by outlining what his vision might look like for different people, he just needs to unpick Dave's plans and scare people about the NHS in order to achieve what he wants.
I personally think that this may well unravel between now and the election but it would be much better for the country - for all of us, whatever your political allegiance - if we knew what the parties stood for.
Dave's actions and achievements in office have not been negligible. He has turned around a country that was a basket case at the end of the last Labour government. He has perhaps been fortunate to benefit from an upturning economic cycle (but he has not stopped progress in this area while so many other EU countries have and Labour's stated economic policies would no doubt have done); he has tried to reform our failing education system but has been largely stifled by 'the blob', he has tried to reform the NHS but been opposed by vested interests, he has tried to reform the Welfare state and has succeeded in getting many people out of the Welfare trap, but with some blameless victims along the way.
I'd have to conclude that his report would be C+, not abject failure but could - and should - have done better.
On the other hand Labour have opposed most government economic policies and has consistently been found to be on the wrong side of the argument. And they haven't really proposed anything that could be seen as a vision for the future. They were right to see the piss-taking profiteering of the energy companies as a big issue, but they were entirely culpable in creating the problem and their solution was plain stupid.
I can't point to a single positive Labour policy that has any kind of 'vision' in it. It seems as if they're not interested in the future of the country but in their own short term future in gaining office. Much like their supporters. Mind you the same accusation can pretty easily be levelled at the Tories too. It all seems to be 'risk-free' and 'vision free' as well. We really are not blessed with strong leaders in public life these days at a time when we do really need some strength and leadership against growing threats from around the world.
Our leaders are scared to stand up in front of any kind of 'real' people. They never put themselves in front of an audience that is not a 'hand-picked' collection of supporters. They avoid any kind of awkward question, any kind of contact with the public. It's pathetic really.
Lord Mandelson has been quoted by the BBC today stating that Labour should not make clear its policy on reducing tuition fees until after the election. How does that help us to decide on who to vote for? It's entirely anti democratic but it has been received without any kind of real criticism. We're sleep-walking into another parliamentary term during which our views will once again be ignored and now what Mandelson is saying is that we don't even need to be consulted or told what we'll get before the election.
And Labour has now appointed John Prescott back into its 'front line' for the election campaign where he will be fronting the party's climate change stance. Good, and if I may say so, grief.
I think the reason why we aren't being presented with any kind of choice or vision, apart from the utter terror that our 'representatives' have at the prospect of having any contact at all with real people, is that they know that we cannot really have any kind of vision for the UK while we're part of the EU. They are not in control of our destiny if it is as a part of the EU and, ipso facto, therefore, nor are we.
Happy? I'm not. I'm furious if you must know.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment