These are bizarre election pledges. Not least because of the lack of verbs that makes them read like something a five-year-old would’ve written. Let’s take each one in turn…

Your family better off
This is clearly not English, but I’m assuming it means something along the lines of my family having more money under a Labour government. I’m not entirely sure how this can come true. If I’d qualified in 1997, when Labour came to power, I’d have had debts of £7,697. As things stand, it looks like I’ll have debts of £19,248 when I qualify and want to set up home. Mr Blair’s plans to introduce top-up fees will make this nearer £64,000 for new medical students. So how, exactly, does he plan to make my family, as that of a young doctor, better off?

Your family treated better and faster
How can you treat a patient “better”? I don’t know how Mr Blair plans to measure that, but it’ll probably involve more arbitrary and silly targets. The introduction of targets on waiting times now means that most GP practices will no longer accept appointments in advance. You have to beat the mad rush on the phone in a morning to get an appointment for the same day. Not only does this mean that many urgent cases get pushed to the back of the queue whilst everyday problems get quick appointments, it also discriminates against those without a phone line, which are likely to be those of a lower socioeconomic class who’s health should be a top priority for the government. Why is Mr Blair promising to treat patients faster, instead of in a more appropriate order?

Your child acheiving more
I certiainly wouldn’t want children of mine to be £64,000 in debt when they start their first job. So I’d probably steer them away from a medical career. And this government has decreed that teachers should have ten percent non-contact time – that’s ten percent of the time teachers are supposed to be teaching should be spent doing paperwork away from the children. How does that help children to achieve more?

Your country’s borders protected
From what? If he’s talking about asylum, then surely for a government in power for eight years, he should be defending the situation he’s created, not saying “Well, it’s a bit rubbish, but we’ll try and fix it up next time. Honest, guv’.”

Your community safer
This government has completely failed to get a handle on rising violent crime levels. Why should I believe that Mr Blair can get a grip on the problem when he’s failed to do so for eight years? Or has violent crime only just become a priority? After all, he has been a bit busy bombing Iraq, effectively commiting violent crime of his own.

Your children with the best start
This is one area on which I actually admire Labour’s record. They’ve done excellently in setting up schemes like SureStart and the Child Trust Fund that make a real difference in poorer areas of the country.

I’d also like to know why Labour are still going out of their way to attack the Tories. On the day the pledges are announced, still a large portion of their homepage is dedicated to ridiculing the Conservative leader – on this occasion, over a perfectly well considered view on ID cards. Do Labour not beleive in anything themselves? Are they only striving to be better than the Tories, and nothing more?

I promised a few weeks back that I’d do this, so I’m making good on that. I’m going to examine, as I did for my own MP, the differences in the way Mr Blair voted on the twenty-one most important issues under this Labour government, and how I would’ve voted given the chance. Over the coming weeks, I’ll also be doing the same for Michael Howard and Charlie Kennedy, to see who I’m most like (and presumably most liking)…

Cutting Lone Parent Benefit (10th Dec 1997)
This motion was an attempt to block the government’s plans to cut lone parent benefit.
To me, it would appear that lone parents have a tough time, particularly those with young children, since they are unable to work and therefore reliant on state income. In the vast majority of cases, these parents will not have chosen to be lone parents, and so they will almost certainly be suffering from a degree of emotional and psychological distress at being left in this very difficult situation, on top of everything else. So I would tend to suggest that we should be doing everything possible to support lone parents, and certainly not making things worse for them by cutting their benefits.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Military Action against Iraq (17th March 1998)
This was a motion to allow military action to be taken against Iraq should peace attempts fail.
At this stage in the game, it would probably be sensible to vote for military action as a last resort, since it would be the obvious choice if all peaceful attempts to get Saddam to comply with his UN duties failed. I would expect all military action to be sanctioned by the United Nations of course.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Cuts in Student Funding (8th June 1998)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to cut student funding.
Students have a tough time in this country. We’ve had the cliché of the penniless student for many years, since the maintenace grants were not nearly enough to pay for someone to live for a year. Therefore it would seem much more logical to be increasing student funding, certainly not cutting it. If I had personally benefitted from this cash when going through university, then I would certainly feel strongly about supporting a motion to block plans to cut funding, and I couldn’t live with myself for making others’ situations worse than that in which I found myself. If I was forced to vote against my conscience on this issue, then I would at least make a reasonably big show of giving an amount equivalent to the maintenance grants I received to a relevant student charity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Age of Consent (22nd June 1998 and 10th Feb 2000)
This was a motion to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to sixteen.
Personally, I see no moral difference between two men having sex, two women having sex, or a man and a woman having sex, and so I don’t see any reason for the age of consent to be different.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Incapacity Benefits Means Test (10th May 1999)
This was a motion to oppose the government’s plans to introduce means testing for incapacity benefit.
I’m generally opposed to means testing of any kind. I don’t see why people should be made to undergo a complex form-filling exercise to claim money to which they are entitled. It doesn’t stop people who shouldn’t get the benefits getting it, because there is a culture of exaggerating circumstances on these forms to ‘get the money’. So why subject genuine claimants to this kind of nonsense?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Freedom of Information Legislation (5th April 2000)
This was an ammendment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information bill.
I think that it is crucial that we are allowed to see as many documents as possible that the government produce, since they are producing them on our behalf and with our money. I can’t think of many situations where we would pay someone to do work for us, and then allow them to keep the details of that work a secret. I think that Freedom of Information is a foundation of a good democracy – how can we know whether our representatives are acting well on our behalf if we can’t get hold of the details of what they’re doing?
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Ban on Hunting with Dogs (17th Jan 2001)
This was a motion to ban hunting with dogs.
I am opposed to banning most things, since any ban is a distinct limit on the freedom of a country’s citizens. This is no exception: I see no logical, non-emotive reason for banning hunting with dogs, but I can see many reasons for not banning it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on motion.

Afghanistan Airstrikes (11th Nov 2001)
This was a motion against the government’s backing for airstrikes on Afghanistan.
I saw no reason for airstrikes on Afghanistan. In fact, I saw little reason for attacking Afghanistan in the first place. Airstrikes in particular are a ‘bad thing’ as they inevitably lead to a great number of civilian casualties, and so I see no good reason for them being used in Afghanistan.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Anti-terrorism Legislation (21st Nov 2001)
This was a motion to give the government the right to detain foreign terrorists without trial.
I find the very idea of detaining anyone without trial is repulsive. These may be desperate times, but measures like this are simply going too far. How are we any better than our enemies if we allow this sort of breach of civil liberties, and discriminate those breaches on grounds of nationality?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion

Single Faith Schools (6th Feb 2002)
This was a motion to require faith schools to take 25% of pupils from other backgrounds.
I do not understand the logic behind this idea, and if schools are producing results (as smaller faith-based schools tend to) then let them get on with it.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (18th Mar 2002)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting wild animals with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Licensing of Hunting (18th Mar 2002)
This was a compromise measure to allow foxhunting under licence.
I would probably have supported this motion, as it would help to regulate the hunting industry and keep animal cruelty in check, whilst allowing the hunting to continue to the benefit of those who wish to undertake this activity.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Adoption (4th Nov 2002)
This was a motion to allow unmarried and gay couples to adopt children.
I fail to see the difference in the relationship between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and so see absolutely no reason that unmarried and gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I accept that this could be seen as a contentious issue, because gay couples can clearly not naturally have chilren of their own, but I don’t think that this makes them any less suitable parents for an adopted child.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

UN Resolution 1441 (25st Nov 2002)
This was a motion to limit the justification for war with Iraq without UN sancation.
I think that it would only be sensible and right to go to war in these circumstances with UN backing, particularly when one of the reasons given for going to war is that Saddam Houssein is not complying with UN resolutions. This is something that the UN should sort out, not two members acting alone.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully elected House of Lords.
I like the fact that the House of Lords is not elected, since it adds a level of ‘randomness’ and therefore a level of protection against a rogue government and rigged elections. To remove this level of protection is a dangerous step for future generations.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

House of Lords (4th Feb 2003)
This was a motion to introduce a fully appointed House of Lords.
Again, I’m happy with the way the Lords has always been, including hereditary peers and so-forth. Just as an all-elected House of Lords removes a vital piece of Constitutional protection, and all-appointed House of Lords has exactly the same result.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Foundation Hospitals (7th May 2003)
This was a motion opposing the introduction of Foundation Hospitals.
I think that reform in the NHS needs to spread rather wider than to a few hospitals, and I’m not keen on private involvement in the NHS.
I would have voted FOR this motion.
Tony Blair voted AGAINST this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (30th June 2003)
This was a motion to completely ban hunting with dogs.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Top-up Fees (27th January 2004)
This was the bill which included plans for variable student tutition fees.
I think that top-up fees are a distinctly bad idea. Students already pay much more than the House of Commons graduates, and I was positively enraged by Tony Blair trying to sell us this as a ‘better deal’. What other possible deal is there where the cost of something more than doubles, and somebody has the gall to tell us that it’s a ‘better deal’?
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair voted FOR this motion.

Hunting with Dogs (15th Sep 2004)
This was a bill to bane foxhunting and hare coursing.
I still haven’t changed my position on this issue. I’m not sure what Tony Blair’s position was this time round though, because he didn’t bother to turn up.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

ID Cards (20th Dec 2004)
This was the bill introducing ID cards.
As I have outlined in detail previously, I do not see any reason to spend vast amounts of money on the introduction of ID cards, but I can see a number of potentially major problems with the system, and I have great privacy fears over the introduction of this system.
I would have voted AGAINST this motion.
Tony Blair DID NOT VOTE on this motion.

Out of the most important twenty-one votes to me, Mr Blair agreed with my position a measly three times. That’s not great. And it certainly rules out any chance there ever was of me voting for him.

But in this case, what’s worse is that Mr Blair failed to vote at all in eleven out of twenty-one cases. That’s more than half the time. He even failed to vote on the invasion of Afghanistan. Are these the actions of a worthy leader? I don’t think so, personally.

So now I’ve ruled out voting Labour. Just Conservatives and Lib Dems to go, then, when I get round to it.

So the Hansard society agrees with me? That’s got to be good news.

As usual, you read it here first. Though the news from the lastest Times poll seems to be worse that I had expected, with both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives making losses. I can’t really even begin to understand what it is that Labour have done in the past few weeks to make potential voters switch allegiance to them – I can only suggest that, perhaps, three percent of the population have gone quite mad. I can’t think of any reason why anybody, traditional Labour supporter or not, would want Labour in power again with a huge majority. Governments with big majorities cannot be as effectively challenged, and so the result is bad policies.

Anyway, this is only a poll, and only of 1,518 people. So it might not be as bad as it seems. Hopefully.

As much as it pains me to admit this, Tony Blair’s plans for immigration are far better and more considered than Michael Howard’s, on which I have previously commented.

Far more distressing, however, is that a Times/Populus poll to be published tomorrow will, according to my sources, show that Labour has a nine point lead over the Conservatives. This is terrible news. If Labour maintain their huge majority, then it will doubtless be bad for the country. But perhaps the poll will reveal some more heartening news about the relative positions of the parties, with the Lib Dems perhaps taking up some of the slack. It’s probably best not to comment until the results are published. But when they are, I will.

Compare for a moment the homepages of the country’s two biggest political parties, just weeks before an anticipated General Election.

The Conservative homepage tells me that they think immigration limits are the way forward, that homeowners, rather than burglars, should be protected by the law, and that they have clearly set out policies for action on tax, schools, hospitals, crime, asylum, and immigration. It carries only two (small) mentions of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party homepage tells me that the Tories are bad. It tells me nothing at all about Labour policies. In fact, the Tory party takes up the second-biggest headline on the page. And the only pictured party leader is Michael Howard! There’s isn’t a Labour member in sight!

And yet, despite hiding their policies away beneath a thick layer of Tory-bashing, Labour is ahead in the opinion polls, and roundly predicted to win the next general election.

Who said that intelligent discussion is the way forward for politics?

So Labour’s new slogan isn’t actually a million miles away from my suggestion after all, then. It does seem strange that a party in power for eight years should be telling us to forget the past – the logical way to interpret it is that they’re ashamed of their record.

Though I believe that Alan Milburn (of whom I’m not a particular fan) has already been out defending this badly written Campbell-ine soundbite, saying that

the “back” of the slogan referred to Tory failures, and not to the past eight years of Labour government.

Surely they must have realised that this would just make them look like comic fools before they unleashed it?

I’m sorry. It just seemed silly to write a post about a poster without posting a picture of said poster. But it also seemed silly to post a picture of a poster that supported the party I’m criticising. So I butchered it. Anyway…

Is there any more time less appropriate than when election campaigning to be insulting large parts of the population? Probably not.

I’m certainly not of the opinion that this poster was designed to be Anti-Semitic, and I’m not even particular against it on that level. It just seems foolish to start a poster campaign that will insult a lot of potential voters.

But the worst part of this story is the response of the Labour bigwigs, as reported in this Guardian piece:

Labour has insisted that this is over-sensitivity and it can be argued that we now live in a culture in which squads of the thin-skinned are on 24-hour alert.

As usual, despite having made an honest error, Labour can’t bring themselves to apologise. Let me just reiterate on that point: The party which is being strongly criticised for being unable to admit mistakes and say sorry is refusing to apologise for it’s election campaign insulting large swathes of the population.

And, not only that, the party which wants to limit our free speech by virtually reintroducing blasphemy law claims that the public is ‘over-sensitive’.

This was a silly and simple mistake by Labour, but their response has made it far, far worse.

Update:

It is one of four designs e-mailed to Labour members, who were asked to vote for their favourite.

This seems to be something that’s circulating about various news stories, such as The BBC’s. But this is not just circulated by email – it’s also freely available on the Labour website, from where I downloaded it. I am not a member of the Labour party (doesn’t that go without saying?), and I don’t receive emails from them.

Howard raises fears of race riots
Last week, things were beginning to look good for Mr Howard. He was looking good, making sensible pledges, and Labour were in self-destruct mode. If only he’d continued in that style, he could easily have made a significant dint in the election results.

And then he goes and says something like this. Why? He’s gone into self-destruct mode himself! I don’t know who he’s trying to appeal to with this announcement (other than the winner of ITV’s Vote for Me), but these terrible proposals are just draconian and unnecessary. There’s nothing logical about quotas.

A quota would also be slapped on how many refugee seekers Britain is prepared to take, and once the limit was reached even those with genuine claims of persecution would be rejected

With everything that is going on in the world, Mr Howard wants to turn the genuinely desperate away from Britain’s door. That isn’t just bad electioneering, it’s just wrong.

The Tory leader’s decision to go on the offensive over asylum and immigration – with a newspaper advert today listing his beliefs about immigration, claiming that Britain has ‘reached a turning point’ and only his party has the ‘courage to act’ – will inevitably bring charges of playing the race card.

There’s no need to ‘accuse’ Mr Howard of playing a race card here. He’s effectively saying ‘I don’t want so many foreigners in our country’. And it’s a sick thing to say. Particularly for the son of Romanian immigrants.

And if he’s trying to reach the Daily Mail readers, I think he’ll find that they have a new minority group to incite hatred against of late: Gypsies.

Making people apply for asylum from their home countries is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I’ve heard from Mr Howard. Just imagine that there are people coming after you, trying to kill you, and you genuinely fear that you’re not going to see another day. No longer will you be able to fly to England, and be assured of help in your time of desperation. Instead, you are expected to sit in your home and fill in forms, send them off, and wait for a response. That just is not practical in the situation.

I understand that it can be perceived that there is a problem with immigration in this country, with the rate being rather higher than the ideal. I’m not a great believer in this. I think that the main problem with immigration and asylum in this country is that we don’t help the people seeking immigration or asylum enough, so they end up feeling isolated and not a part of the community. If Mr Howard wants to restrict immigration slightly in order than more GBP per person can be spent on extra help for these people, then I think that this could be a positive move. But I’m more confident that Mr Howard proposes to use the ‘savings’ from this policy to cut tax.

Quotas on asylum are definitely not the answer. If Michael Howard genuinely beleives there is a problem with the number of new citizens entering our country (a problem which I’m not convinced exists at the moment), then by all means restict immigration if you must, but please don’t stop helping genuine refugees.

Blair: Tory spending plans ‘ludicrous’ (Guardian)

I honestly think that the soundbites from this speech make Mr Blair look worse than he did before.

For him to call his opposition’s plans ‘ludicrous’ makes him look, frankly, silly, especially when the Tories are out saying that they respect that their’s is not the only point of view. It makes Mr Howard look like a considered broadsheet reader, and Mr Blair look like a reactionary red-top fan. Which, of course, is what won the 1997 election for him. But that isn’t to say it’ll work again. In 1997, he had a broad appeal across the country. This time, if he continues to make speeches like this one, he’s going to isolate everyone from upper-middle-class upwards. He would be much better advised to be appealing to middle England, not brushing half of them aside.

From the campaigns so far, the Conservatives should be (but clearly aren’t) miles ahead. The Tories are landing punches on them, and Labour are damaging themselves with their infighting and poor speeches. And the Liberal Democrats need to be considered as a serious threat too, particularly with being seen as the Iraq protest party.

If Mr Blair is looking for a convincing victory, he needs to get back on form. And fast.