Policy Comparison 9 - Welfare

Finally, I'm getting around to our final policy area. Welfare is quite a tricky area to do a comparison. There is broad agreement that we need the welfare system, broad agreement that it could be improved in some ways. I suspect that most of what would be suggested here would be tinkering that would benefit some at the expense of others. Either that or more rhetoric about cutting red tape, etc... On other hand what I would hope to see are proposals that actually make sense in terms of reducing poverty, especially child poverty, that offer people enough to live on, but actually do something about the benefits trap and offer people an incentive to work with stigmatising benefits. Having enough to live off should be a right and not a privilege.

Again in a fairly random order:

BNP

• People who genuinely want to work must be provided with the opportunity to do so in return for training which will put them back into proper full-time employment.
• In return for financial support and training for a new career, the benefit recipient must complete a certain number of hours of work per week.
• Make all benefits and social housing only available to British citizens.
• Make length of residency in an area the key criterion for council house allocation.
• Preserve the 'right to buy' of individual tenants, but with the money from sales being used to build more council houses.
• Take all privatised social housing stock back under local democratically controlled council ownership.
• Ensure that the billions being spent on the utterly bogus asylum seeker and immigration swindles is redeployed to alleviate the appalling conditions under which many of Britain's old people are forced to live.
• Restore the earnings link with pensions and ensure that elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care in their old age.

I can't get past the rascist and discriminatory nature of some of these proposals in order to properly evaluate the populist measures contained elsewhere.

LABOUR

• Guaranteed job or training place for 18-24 year olds unemployed for over six months.
• Increase child benefit and child tax credit.
• Increase the Pension Credit to a minimum of £130 a week.
• A Winter Fuel Payment of £400 for over 80s households and £250 to the over 60s.
• Help savers by increasing the threshold of Individual Savings Accounts to over £10,000.
• Increase statutory redundancy pay to £380 a week.
• Extend the Stamp Duty holiday for properties under £175,000

Ok - what's here is good as far it goes. As I've said elsewhere I have reservation about the idea of guaranteed jobs/training. Winter fuel payments are unarguably a good idea as is encouraging savings. How they pay for this is another matter.

LIB-DEMS

• Restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings immediately.
• Reform Winter Fuel Payments to extend them to all severely disabled people.
• Meet the government's obligations towards Equitable Life policyholders who have suffered loss.
• Give people greater flexibility in accessing part of their personal pension fund early.
• End the rollercoaster of tax credit overpayments by fixing payments for six months at a time.
• Give people control over their pension by scrapping the rule that compels you to buy an annuity when you reach 75.
• Allow individuals to save through the UK Infrastructure Bank, offering stable long-term returns.
• Increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 - taking 3.6m of the lowest paid out of the tax.

Again, there's some good ideas here. I actually like their proposed changes to the tax system and the idea of the UK Infrastructure Bank has some appeal as well and includuing the severely diasbled in winter fuel payments seems eminently sensible.

UKIP

• Child Benefit, the Child Trust Fund, Child Tax Credits and the Education Maintenance Allowance should be merged into an enhanced Child Benefit payable for each of the first three children in each family.
• The Childcare element of Working Tax Credits, Early Years Funding, Sure Start expenditure and the tax relief on Employer Nursery Vouchers should be replaced with flat-rate, non-means tested nursery vouchers to cover around half the cost of a full-time nursery place for all children aged two to four.
• Instead of social housing being let at below-market rents with tenants liable for full Council Tax, with social tenants entitled to claim income-related Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, local councils should charge social tenants an all-inclusive rent (rent plus Council Tax), set at a flat percentage of the tenant household's gross income.
• Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for private tenants should be phased out and replaced with 'Workfare' jobs, which will be administered by local councils, to ensure that those who would otherwise not be able to find work can still cover their rent and Council Tax, as well as contributing something of value to the local community.
• All other 'key benefits' (Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Income Support, Carer's Allowance, Statutory Maternity Pay) as well as student maintenance grants should be rolled into a single, flat-rate Basic Cash Benefit ('BCB'), set at the same weekly rate as Jobseeker's Allowance/Income Support.
• Entitlement to the BCB should be extended to all low- and non-earners, in particular, to married or co-habiting mothers, students and carers, irrespective of household composition, income or assets.
• This Party proposes to replace a myriad of complicated means-tested benefits with straightforward universal benefits, the running cost of the entire welfare and pensions systems will be no more than £1.7bn, giving a saving to the taxpayer of £8bn.
• Only allow entitlement to welfare benefits after a minimum waiting period of ten years and on obtaining British citizenship for those who originally entered the country with a valid work permit or for reasons of marriage to a British citizen.

A programme of more wholescale reform of the system, but I suspect its all a little bit pie-in-the-sky, cutting red tape rhetoric dressed up in misleading details which are probably unmanageable. The figures of savings seem conjured up from nowhere and I suspect the changes they suggest would cost more to implement than they would actually save. Similarly, the proportion of household income for rent for social housing seems unworkable - how would youn account for seasonal or unpredictable incomes (and that's just one problem) whilst the idea of workfare jobs seems to be a step back towards the Victorian poorhouses.

CONSERVATIVES

• Create 'The Work Programme' - one single back-to-work programme for everyone who is unemployed, including the 2.6 million people claiming Incapacity Benefits. Support will be provided based on an individual's needs rather than the benefit that they are claiming.
• Support the young unemployed by referring them on to the Work Programme after 6 months of unemployment.
• The Work Programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
• This party supports ending the couple penalty in the tax credit system as we make savings from our welfare reform plans.
• During the recession we will introduce four new programmes to supplement the Work Programme: Youth Action for Work, Work for Yourself, Work Together, and Work Clubs.
• This party will create an extra 10,000 university places next year. We will fund the cost for this by giving graduates an incentive to repay their student loan debts to the taxpayer ahead of schedule.
• Any new business started in the first two years of after the election will pay no Employer National Insurance on the first ten employees it hires during its first year (predicted to generate around 60,000 additional jobs over two years).

Most of this strikes me as completely unworkable - if the providers of the work programme only get paid when people get jobs, given the current lack of available jobs then I can't see voluntary or private sector agencies queuing up to provide the programme. They're talkingf about creating 60,000 jobs for 2.6 million people The thing sounds pretty horrible anyway - could they not think of a better name, sounds like a sentance a jidge would give out.

GREEN

• Everyone to receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life.
• Extend workers rights to part time, casual workers and the self employed. Democracy in cooperatives and workplaces would be encouraged and this Party would value and protect carers and volunteers.
• The value of those who care voluntarily for the elderly is appreciated when we see the high price the market demands for such services.
• This Party would introduce a Citizen's Pension that would pay pensioners a liveable amount, without means testing and would be linked to the rise in average earnings. Independent studies by the National Association of Pension Funds have shown that a citizen's Pension could be afforded today within current net expenditure on state pensions.
• By abolishing tax relief on private pension contributions we can save enough money to provide much of the extra funds needed.
• With a decent state pension it is unnecessary to make additional contributions compulsory.
• Voluntary private and occupational schemes organised for and by the workers and pensioners concerned should be implemented.

I like the idea of a citizens income and citizens pension and would wholeheartedly supprt the extension of workers rights. I'll confess to getting a bit lost in the whole pension thing.

Summary
I kind of feel that I should be more passionate about the proposals here than I am. After all these are important concerms. Maybe I'm just getting a bit too cynical about the whole lot of them, or maybe its just that none of the parties are really getting to grips with things here - the Green, Labour and Lib-Dems all have individual good ideas. The Tories and UKIP seem to have dreamt up their policies late at night down the pub and the BNP are still beyond the pale - but I remain deeply uninspired by all 6. Feel free to disagree. As a rough order, I'd probably go:

1. Labour
2. Greens
3. Lib Dems 4. Conservatives
5. UKIP
6. BNP

Overall Summary

For those of you who've stayed with me throughout I hope you've found it interesting or helpful. any feedback is welcome.

Putting it all together my overall ranking would be:

6. BNP (nine 6th places out of 9) they are still an extremist racist party who twist every policy area to fit their own loathsonme agenda.
5. UKIP (two 4th places and seven 5th places - move up in a couple of areas due to particularly poor policies for Labour on immigration and the tories on Education). Like the BNp try and twist everything to their own agenda, but the agenda is less objectionable. Some policies seem to be trying to hold very incompatible viewpoinys simultaneously.
4. Conservatives (Two 3rd places, six 4th places, one 5th place) I've tried to be open minded to the possible strengths of their policies, but for me they remain still too committed to private sector sorting out the public sector, letting the market govern and offering the public false choices rather than genuinely having ideas to improve things. I see no substance to back up the Big Society slogan. I think they would be bad for social cohesion.
3. Labour (the most inconsistent - three 1st places, one 2nd, three 3rd, one 4th and one 5th) They have sensible ideas in some areas, but are weak on the environment and very bad on immigration. My main issue remains one of trust and a feeling that they're running out of steam.
2. Lib-Dems ( Three 1st places, three 2nd places, three 3rd places) I really like them on education and democracy (my main reason fotr supporting them would be on voting reform) and their strong on the environment too. Most of their policies have something to recommend them, even if not all the suggestions make total sense. In general, though, they're not as different to the other two as they would like to pretend and have little more overall vision.
1. Greens (four 1st places, four 2nd places and one 3rd). They have the policies that excite me the most and have the most vision. The offer the most positive genuine alternative to the three main parties. Slightly lacking in detail in some places, but overall their policies have the most respect for people and the planet.

Policy Comparison 8 - Immigration/Asylum

Ok, onto the penultimate area now. At the risk of being out of step with the majority of the public, the things that has dismayed me most about the immigration debate so far is how much the main parties are letting the likes of the BNP force the issue. Labour and the Lib-Dems seemed to have lurched towards the right on this issue since the last election.

My own views on the issue - yes, the system does seem a bit of a mess and we probably need to do something to keep better track of who is coming. At the same time, we need to recognise that immigrants often bring economic and cultural advantages to the country. There is possibly also a case to argue that with an ageing population we are going to need more people to come and pay taxes in order to be able to balance the books. Of course, this needs to be balanced with concerns about over-crowding. Something also needs to be done about people-trafficking which nobody wants to admit is happening.

As far as asylum goes, which has been under-mentioned in the election so far, there should be no limits, we need to stop the disgrace of locking up children and we need to provide asylum seekers with an amount they can live off and the opportunity to work whilst their applications are being processed. No questions about that, in my book, its what is morally and socially right.

Again, in no particular order:

BNP

• Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally.
• Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British.
• Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate.
• Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently.
• Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases.
• Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

Or, in other words, get rid of as many as possible of different race and culture. I'm tempted to leave it there and let such a self-evidently abhorrent policy condemn itself, but practically how would you deport so many illegals if you didn't know where they were, except if the BNP had their way they would be easy to spot as they'd be the only ones here with a different skin colour.


Lib - Dems

• Improve border controls with the introduction of a National Border Force and reintroduce exit checks at all ports.
• Introduce a regional strand to the points-based immigration system, awarding more points for possessing the skills the UK economy needs and for moving to areas that have the will and resources to receive more migrants.
• Work closely with the European Union on immigration, especially in tackling people-trafficking and immigration crime, and a shared asylum policy.
• Prioritise the improvement of visa services at UK consulates, introduce a full complaints procedure and review the restrictions on rights of appeal.
• Transfer responsibility for producing migration statistics to the Office of National Statistics to restore public confidence.
• Increase the price of work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers and use the money to re-train British workers in sectors affected by immigration.
• Develop an earned route to citizenship, beginning with a two-year work permit, for irregular migrants who have been in the UK for 10 years, subject to English language and civics tests or proof of participation in suitable courses in these subjects.
• Promote Integration as well as Immigration by tackling housing shortages, extending language lessons, reforming the Life In The UK test to empower new arrivals to engage fully in society, and encourage twinning arrangements between schools with different ethnic or social mixes of pupils.

There's a mixture here, and some ideas which have become controversial. Overall I still find the tone a bit too anti-immigrant for me (especially increasing the price of work permits), but there are other things to recommend it. The amnesty issue is a tricky one, but it is at least an attempt to do something about a hidden problem and they have a willingness to tackle people-trafficking that I applaud. It might encurage more people to try and come, but something needs to be done. Similarly I'm quite attracted to the regional variation idea and think it could work if you get the first bits right of having a better idea of who's here in the first place. People who come legally are maybe easier to track and less likely to disappear into the hidden economy.


Greens

• We will replace existing British Immigration law with an Immigration law based on the principle of fair and prompt treatment of applicants rather than on excluding dishonest applicants whatever the cost to the honest ones. It will not aim to allow increased net migration to Britain other than for humanitarian reasons or as a result of other party policies. We will consult widely with affected groups to ensure that features of the current law which are of concern to them are addressed.
• We will allow the partners, prospective partners, immediate families and prospective families of British residents to join them without excessive delays or unreasonable requirements for proof of relationship. This will be independent of the financial status of the resident and will not be dependent on her/him providing accommodation (We recognise that this must be implemented in association with a housing policy).
• A person's right to stay will not be linked to that of partners or families but will be independent. Families will not be divided by deportation unless the deportee poses a serious danger to public safety.
• We will abolish the 'primary purpose' rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.
• We will allow the victims of past errors in immigration decisions to come to the UK where these decisions have resulted in continuing serious deprivation.
• Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.
• We will aim to ensure that UK immigration control takes place primarily at ports of entry so that no resident is required to carry proof of residence.
• We will implement a visibly independent appeal process for Immigration decisions.

I like the tone of this a lot better. There's much more of recognition of the rights and dignity of immigrants and treating them as human beings rather than as a problem to be dealt with. I like the principles of not splitting families up, of trying to rectify past mistakes, etc... This would get my vote. I also really like the idea of removing the ultimate decision from politicians to an independent decision.

Labour

• Introduce a points-based system for permanent residence and citizenship clearly spelling out the rights and obligations of legal migrants to Britain, as well as the requirements for earning British citizenship. These requirements will include learning English, paying tax and obeying the law "because we believe its fair that those who look to build a new life here should earn the right to do so".
• Enforcing strict penalties against immigrants or their employers if they break the rules, including the establishment of new partnerships between local authorities and enforcement agencies to gather intelligence, disrupt illegal activity and track down illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.
• Increase the rate of removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers and further expand our detention estate.
• Help communities manage migration at a local level including the Migration Impacts Fund, paid for by an extra levy on new migrants as they enter our country, which will help lessen the short-term impacts on local communities new migration can have.
• Changes to how housing is allocated so that councils can choose to give greater priority to those who have been on the waiting lists the longest, those with local of family connections, or those needing support to take up or remain in low paid employment among other things.
• To ensure fairness we will insist that employers must advertise skilled jobs to resident workers through JobCentre Plus for four weeks before they can bring in a worker from outside Europe.

This makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. There seems to be a clear attempt to ward off the BNP. Nowhere are immigrants seen as anything but a problem, there seems a questionable link with crime, the increase in detention as a response must be opposed, no recognition of the positives immigration can bring to an area and an attitude towards housing that opens the door for widescale discrimination.

UKIP

• A five-year moratorium on settled immigration (except for people with parents or grandparents born in the UK) until proper immigration controls are put in place, and the situation regarding illegal immigrants has been resolved by means of expulsion.
• The party says work permits should continue to be issued to companies requiring employees to work in the UK throughout this moratorium period.
• After the moratorium, future immigration would then be on a strictly controlled basis using a points system. To ensure the UK population does not reach 70 million we will also implement a cap of 50,000 (gross) immigration.
• No one should be admitted unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds - and this to apply equally to their dependents.
• Britain can only control immigration by reclaiming control of her borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union, as the EU now controls asylum seeker policy and requires open borders under its immigration policies.
• UK immigration policy should not discriminate in favour of EU citizens at the expense of Commonwealth citizens. There should be fair and equal treatment for all.
• Citizenship should be granted on a provisional basis for a ten-year probationary period. New citizens should be required to sign a 'Declaration of Citizenship'.
• Applications will only be considered at a British port or airport where the applicant has arrived directly from the country from which asylum is sought; or at the British embassy or consulate in that country.

In its own way, I find this far less offensive than Labour’s policy. It’s pretty much what you would expect from UKIP and whilst I would oppose most of the measures here, they don’t have the racial edge of the BNP or the focus on detention of Labour. Yes, its anti-European, of course, and the last point shows a lack of understanding of the realities of lived experience of asylum seekers.

Conservatives

• Immigration can be of real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.
• For economic migrants from outside the EU, we propose a two-stage process: the first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy.
• The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services.
• This party would also apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU entrants.
• This party will introduce a dedicated Border Police Force to protect the UK's borders, with the power to stop, search, detain and prosecute the terrorists, traffickers and illegal immigrants who currently slip through the net.

I like the first point. The rest has its own sense. There’s no mention of asylum and I don’t believe the Border Force is the answer by itself to people-trafficking, just as current customs and police measures haven’t been the answer to drug-trafficking say. The cap is at least an arguable policy, but it does fail to take into account the differences between different areas of the UK. I’m also unsure about how practicable the transitional controls within the EU would be. I think the freedom of travel and labour within the EU has largely been a good thing. What they are proposing seems a half-way house that I’m not sure works – in many respects UKIP’s policy is more internally coherent.

Summary

So the order this time would be

1. Greens – at lot to like in their approach to treating immigrants as humans first.

2. Lib-Dems – some of the ideas are controversial, but I like what they’re trying to address, although not all areas of the policy.

3. Conservatives – the highest I’ve placed them yet, but their approach seems more reasonable than Labour on this issue.

4. UKIP – I disagree with this policy in its entirety, but it doesn’t make me uncomfortable in its tone

5. Labour – we need to be using less detention, not more. I really dislike this policy and from a Labour government it is very disappointing

6. BNP – no more comment needed.

Policy Comparison 7 - Health & the NHS

OK, so this is another devolved area, so the issues are not necessarily directly going to affect me, except if the Westminster government decided to cut spending on the NHS it would mean a proportional budget cut to the Scottish government. As I've already blogged about, it would be interesting in those circumstances to see what an SNP government would do in response. At the moment we have free care for the elderly in Scotland, whilst that remains a big issue in this election south of the border.

I remain sceptical of promises from all parties to protect spending on health. Similarly I remain sceptical of claims to save huge amounts of money by cutting red tape and bureaucracy. This is easy election language, but if it was that easy it would already have been done. Yes, there is bureaucracy in the NHS which could be streamlined, but it costs money to re-structure and analyse where cuts can be made and often where cuts are made, even if they are not in frontline services, they have a knock-on effect. So I wouldn't pay too much head to extravagant claims about cutting bureaucracy.

Another issue I's like to comment on is decentralisation. As with crime, I remain entirely unconvinced about the idea of directly elected local health authorities. I think it would produce voter fatigue, turn managers into politicians, encourage even more short-termism. In addition, I'm not sure that regional variation is a very good thing in health terms - it does me no good to live an area which is excellent at treating cancer if i've got to go 300 miles to get good treatment for what's actually wrong with me. I want the standards across the board to be raised and think that decentralisation is a way of masking the fact that the politicians really don't know how to do this.

So what are they actually saying:

Conservatives

• We will never change the idea at the heart of our NHS "that healthcare in this country is free at the point of use and available to everyone based on need, not ability to pay".
• We are committed to protecting health spending in real terms.
• Our reform plan is based on the methods of the post-bureaucratic age - decentralisation, accountability and transparency.
• Instead of bureaucratic accountability there will be democratic accountability.
• We will decentralise power, so that patients have a real choice.
• We will publish information about the kind of results that healthcare providers are achieving, we will make sure there is no hiding place for failure. If patients don't like what they are offered, they will be able to find something better.
• Making doctors and nurses accountable to patients, not to endless layers of bureaucracy, will also save billions that are currently spent on needless bureaucratic checks "meaning we can spend more on the frontline services that make a real difference".
• When patients not only have the power to choose where they get treated but also the information to make an informed choice, then hospitals and GPs that don't provide good care will have to raise their game. Doctors and nurses will need to use their new-found freedom to meet the needs of the most important people in the NHS - patients.

Here we have all the cutting bureaucracy and decentralisation talk that I've already dealt with above. I also think that there's something quite offensive in the suggestion that choice will improve things as it will make doctors and hospitals raise their game - this implies that the problems at the moment are because front-line staff aren't trying hard enough? No, problems are much deeper rooted than that and will take more than that to fix it. I think their noble commitment to the NHS and protecting spending will be undermined by an erroneous philosophy of choice - they are offering people the wrong choices here.


Greens

• This Party's approach involves increasing the level of awareness of when to seek health care and when to allow things to get better naturally. It is also important to protect those suffering mental health problems from discrimination wherever it may occur.
• A key policy is to reverse the sale of NHS services and hospitals to private companies, for example we are going to bring cleaners back into the NHS team.
• We will start by promoting cycling and walking to school, which will reduce pollution and help to combat childhood asthma.
• Ensuring schools provide healthy meals will reduce the levels of obesity in children.
• We will introduce a NHS tax to make the level of funding for the NHS transparent for all. There will be the ability to increase taxation locally, if people decide, so that local NHS services can benefit directly, just as the police and schools can at present.
• We will reduce the level of spending on defence to provide further funds for health care. These changes in funding will allow us to abolish prescription charges.
• Our focus on increasing community based services and community health centres will keep care as local as possible.

I like the focus on prevention and promoting healthy lifestyles. I like the reversal of involving private companies. The local tax and community health centres seem a better way of giving local people more say and involvement. Abolishing prescription charges would be a good thing, but not a priority for me. Overall, I feel what's here is good, but there's a lack of detail on improving health services like hospitals, etc...


Lib-Dems

• We will give local people democratic control over their local health services. This would give local people the opportunity to save hospital services currently under threat.
• We will abolish strategic health authorities, which are remote and unaccountable.
• We will reduce the plethora of contradictory NHS targets and guarantee high standards in health care to each citizen.
• We will introduce a 'patient contract', which will specify the services and treatment an individual can expect to receive from the NHS and highlight the patient's rights to information about treatment and medical records.
• We will give patients greater autonomy over how they manage their condition in specific areas within the NHS.
• We will give individuals with long-term conditions an agreed Personal Care Plan.
• We will make a 'universal care payment' based on an individual's need, not their ability to pay, for those aged over 65 who require personal care.
• A Dutch approach would be used in the event of a super bug outbreak. Patients would be isolated, staff sent home and medical wards closed down.

On the positive side - I think the choice being offered here is a better one - autonomy over managing their condition where they are being treated, rather than having to choose between competing treatment centres. The Personal Care Plan also seems like a good idea to me, as does the universal care payment, if they can afford it. That said we're back to this local democracy of health care, which in effect would out different areas in competition with each other for a limited pot of money - if one hospital doesn't close money will have to be saved elsewhere. To me, what we'd end up with is a very uneven and inequitable system.


Labour

• We will introduce a new guarantee of diagnostic tests for cancer, with results, within one week of GP referral.
• We will introduce free one-to-one home care by specialist nurses for every cancer patient in England, as well as giving more patients the option of receiving treatment at home instead of having to go to hospital.
• We will introduce a new right to free health checks for everyone aged between 40 and 74, to prevent at least 9,500 heart attacks and strokes every year and save 2,000 lives.
• We will work to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in hospitals, with a £100 million ring-fenced Privacy and Dignity Fund to help Trusts make swift adjustments to hospital accommodation.
• The Family Nurse Partnership Programme, which provides intensive support from highly trained nurses for the most vulnerable first-time mothers, will be expanded from 30 to 70 sites by 2011, with a view to rolling out across England over the next decade.
• To help tackle child obesity, every 11 to 14-year-old will be given hands-on cooking lessons, making cheap, healthy dishes from fresh ingredients.

My main issues here are where is the money coming from and why haven't they done it already. There's a lot of positive ideas here, especially like the Family NUrse Programme idea. I think they do need to recognise that Obesity is down to more than just diet, some lifestyle measures would need to be considered as well.

UKIP

• This Party will safeguard NHS spending at current levels whilst rooting out waste and inefficiency.
• This Party will create elected county health boards to replace strategic health authorities and primary care trusts.
• County health boards to franchise out the running of health services to private companies, charities, non-profits and co-operatives. They will be on fixed budgets, ensuring the free-at-the-point-of-delivery principle of the NHS but to ensure efficiency savings through innovation.
• Franchisees will ensure Matrons uphold excellent cleanliness in hospitals.
• County health boards will be able to withdraw franchises from sub-par franchisees.
• Controlling immigration will prevent health tourism and ease the burdens on the NHS.
• This Party will also allow individuals to opt out of the NHS by providing healthcare vouchers.
• This Party will restore free eye tests and dental checks for all UK citizens.

Trying to be positive, free eye-tests (which we have in Scotland) and especially dental checks would be good. Other than that, there's the BS rhetoric of cutting bureaucracy, greater privatisation and decentralisation and a rather quaint fixation with Matron (sorry, can't help thinking Kenneth Williams "Oooh Matron!"). No, No, No. Immigration probablt brings more staff into the NHS from Doctors to lowly paid care-workers, than health tourists, so NO again.


BNP

• Replace 100,000 NHS bureaucrats with doctors, nurses and dentists.
• Invest sufficient money in the NHS to provide a decent service to the British people.
• Bring hospital cleaning back in-house and make high cleanliness a top priority.
• End the scandal of foreign health tourism.
• Train and pay to retain British doctors, nurses and dentists instead of looting the Third World of staff who are desperately needed in their home countries.
• Revitalise the healthcare system by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay.
• We will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them.
• More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets

On the less harmful note, we have more anti-bureaucracy rhetoric, but then you get the racism dressed up as concern for the third world as a justification for sending foreign doctors home and the distasteful scrapping of all foreign aid. And then again, mixed in are some good ideas (probably stolen from the greens) about encouraging healthy living.

Summary

So this time round it would be:

1. Greens - as much on trust over Labour as policy, although I really like what's there, I just think there a definitely details missing
2. Labour in contrast, I lack trust in, but they have the details if the over-arching vision.
3. Lib-Dems - unsure about some of their ideas, but others seem to be the right way of giving patients greater choice, unlike the ones below.
4. Conservatives - I did try, for objectivity's sake, to find something I could like here, but I just couldn't.
5. UKIP - scary
6. BNP - scarier.

Just immigration and Welfare left to go now,