Inside Track Election 2011
Promises, pledges and politicking
Bill Howatt Leader of SE Budget Review 2005-07
The eagerly awaited political party manifestos will appear any day now but whether what they promise can ever become reality is an entirely different matter
Manifestos are complex because they have
to serve many purposes and appeal to varied audiences. For some, they are statements of value and aspiration; for others, they are serious commitments; and for many, they are glorified advertising. No matter your view of manifestos, there is but one reality; they are the baseline for the next ‘Programme for Government’. Public servants, in this case the civil service,
are charged with implementing the policies of whatever political mix emerges from the ballot boxes. Manifestos are the first indicators of a new ‘Programme for Government’. In devolved Scotland, the potential mix is hard to judge. Even after the results are declared there can be considerable uncertainty for up to four weeks if two or more parties are involved in negotiations around possible coalition or qualified support for a minority administration. Every manifesto must be scrutinised carefully for signs of what might make the transition from aspiration to a solid policy commitment. Gone are the days when the civil service prepared two, or at most three, briefs for incoming ministers. Te possible permutations of parties, and hence policies is much greater and harder to read. Four years ago I led a group that reviewed
the Scottish Executive Budgets to suggest better ways of achieving the priorities of the Scottish Executive. ‘Choices for a Purpose’ was published in May 2007. Te headlines
24 Holyrood 28 March 2011
focused on recommendations about switching resources. Today they would be ‘cuts’! Tere was little comment on our two
chapters about the way policies are developed, implemented and managed. Yet these are more relevant than our budget-specific chapters as the Holyrood election looms large. Section 4.2 was headed ‘Setting Priorities’
and reviewed the lessons from developing the Partnership Agreement that became the Programme for Government of the Scottish Executive. Most are relevant to manifestos and it will be interesting to see whether the first manifestos since publication of our work reflect the lessons. Para 4.2.6 noted: “…everyone... was very positive about the
need to continue to improve the process through which political priorities are articulated so that they can be implemented in a clear, transparent and durable way.” We made some very simple points that bear
repetition to inform judgements on the new manifestos in terms of how well they can be turned into a programme for government. Tey can be presented as a set of criteria against which to judge each manifesto aspiration or commitment –
1. Meaning – is it clear what is intended, including consequential impacts?
2. Costs – are absolute and opportunity costs identified?
Example A – the Partnership Agreement in
3. Priority – is there an order of priorities for commitments?
4. Timescale – is there a timescale for implementing each commitment?
5. Flexibility – what happens when new problems or priorities emerge?
6. Monitoring – are there SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timed) targets to permit monitoring?
Two examples illustrate how to apply the criteria.
2003 said: “We will continue to assist public bodies to improve the quality of life for local communities.” We called this an unspecific commitment. Example B – the Partnership Agreement
also said: “We will significantly increase teacher numbers to 53,000 by 2007.” Te equivalent SNP/Tory commitment in this Parliament relates to police numbers increasing by 1000. Let’s term this a specific commitment. Anyone can work through a manifesto and
apply this as a scoring system to get some idea how well the aspirations/commitments can be translated into a programme for government. It would be rough and ready, and would not
A. Unspecific – ‘assist public bodies’
1. Meaning – not at all clear! Assist in what way, how, when, why?
2. Costs – none. 3. Priority – not stated. 4. Timescale – not stated. 5. Flexibility – not covered. 6. SMART targets – not possible.
B. Specific – teachers/police
1. Meaning – very clear in terms of numbers, but why? What is this for?
2. Costs – none quoted, but will have to be found! 3. Priority – not stated. 4. Timescale – Parliament term. 5. Flexibility – none, the figures are absolute.
6. SMART targets – yes, in terms of numbers and timescale but not in terms of outputs/outcomes.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80