It’s the battle to end “austerity” again this week in Scotland, proving again this is the ground the political parties believe is where it will all be won or lost. But who are the real winners here? It’s certainly not the voters.
We all know what austerity means, but it is starting to become one of those words that loses meaning in your head if you say it too much. This week, it has been in the context of health and child care.
Various blows have been traded across the political trenches, with the SNP’s commitment to full fiscal responsibility under pressure from an analysis from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, Labour challenged to go further on NHS spending and their liberal use of phrase “ending austerity” despite admitting the need for “fiscal responsibility” over the life of the next parliament, among others. Of course, every assertion is met by multiple rebuttals, and rebuttals of the rebuttal, with figures questioned, new figures published and so on.
There is absolutely no doubt that public finance and an understanding of how taxes will be used and what public services will be available is important to voters. The economy features consistently among the most important issues for voters. But how is the “ordinary” voter supposed to make sense of debates clouded by constant questioning and excessive analysis? Of course, most economists will tell you that it is very difficult to give accurate answers to a question where the underlying assumptions are not fixed. A list of pros and cons might help though.
That’s the very essence of what is being lost.
For many questions, there may be no right or wrong answer, simply a series of pros and cons for different approaches which voters can align with their individual preferences to decide which party is right for them. However, the constant zero-sum approach and the need to prove others’ arguments are categorically wrong makes this very difficult.
I was quite struck by a debate that occurred last year, which has re-emerged, concerning giving the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) the responsibility for providing an independent assessment of the public finance pledges in party manifestos. Indeed, there was some discussion in Scotland earlier this year about such a body being set up in Scotland.
In whatever form this body takes, it sounds like a reasonably good idea if election debates are going to continue to be fought in this way. It may give voters more accessible information about the pros and cons of various positions and enable them to make an informed decision for themselves.
The Scottish Youth Parliament worked tirelessly during the course of the referendum to encourage young people to go out and seek the information they need in order to make an informed decision for themselves. We engaged with thousands of young people across Scotland face-to-face, and many more thousands online to spark their interest in politics in an impartial manner.
What was evident from this engagement is that finding sources of accurate and, crucially, accessible information i.e. that is not large academic jargon filled publications is a lot easier said than done.
So, who will win the battle for Downing Street in a few weeks time? It certainly won’t be the voters.