Only one election leaflet has been stuffed through this letterbox to date, from the Conservatives. Four page A5, four-colour printing. The front proclaims a list of words that are 'key issues' for the ward: schools, parking, planning, roads, football and traffic. The list could apply to almost any town, city or county. Except football, perhaps, as the 'temporary' home of Brighton & Hove Albion is in the area until such time as politicians at levels from village all the way down to Whitehall can end the interminable wrangle about building a new stadium at Falmer. Or anywhere.
Three of the six key words—parking, roads and traffic (carefully spaced out)—are so closely related that it appears someone may have had difficulty finding enough points to make a respectable list. Inside the leaflet is a list of things the councillors have done since 2003. Brightonian Lynne Truss would be as appalled as this professional editor at the use or absence of apostrophes and random capitalisation of words, but that's the general state of literacy for you!
Finally, under the heading The new Way Forward, the back page lists seven statements that are generally devoid of content. Remember, this is the only information being presented to the electorate at large as the basis for making decisions about voting. Detail is excluded or kept to a minimum. To find what some of the statements mean it is necessary to look at the local Conservative Party website for even the smallest clue, if anyone can be bothered. I can. The words in bold below are the statements in their entirety.
A listening Council where everyone is included.
Everyone will be a member of the council? Well, no. This is probably a reference to the idea on the website that the Conservatives would introduce referendums on 'key city-wide issues such as parking schemes and tall-buildings strategies' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=380).
Council tax Guarantee.
Guarantee that there will be one? That it will be reduced? Abolished? Squandered? The website (same reference as above) says the Conservatives would be 'determined' not to let increases rise above inflation for the four years until the next election.
Commitment to residents on School Admissions.
Clearly a reference to the controversial council policy that the Tories did eventually oppose, but what is the commitment? The website offers this: 'We will work tirelessly to increase standards in all schools, so that no unhappiness arises from the school admissions process.' Worthy but it doesn't exactly explain what would be done in practice to solve a seriously intractable problem. It goes on: 'We will also seek to lower the numbers of teenage pregnancies and reduce the number of placement moves that looked-after young people currently face.' (www.brightonandhoveconservatives.com/news_detail.php?nid=357)
A faster-moving city and an end to parking chaos.
How? The website offers a nod to 'environment-friendly public transport' but says only that 'build-outs that cause needless traffic congestion' would be reviewed. 'Build-out' apparently means fitting out an existing commercial building for a new tenancy. So that's what causes traffic congestion? And here was I thinking it was the volume of vehicles trying to use too little road space. As for parking chaos, no idea. Maybe the problem has something to do with too many cars, but that is not mentioned. However, 'politicians should not dictate the way individuals and their families travel around'. So 4x4s are fine for the school run.
A cleaner, greener city.
Everyone's in favour of green (OK, except Jeremy Clarkson). Here at last the website reveals a few genuine proposals, such as instituting a 'Clean Up Brighton & Hove Day' (citizens do the cleaning). At least the Conservatives' logo is mainly green.
Safer crossing on the A23.
Who could object to safer roads?
A crackdown on antisocial behaviour and drug abuse.
Again, who among the electorate is likely to object? Again, the question is: what would be done?
COMMENT
Overall, the impression is that a handful of vaguely well-meaning sentiments do not rise above the platitudinous. Can't the voters expect candidates seeking our mandate to be more specific about what they intend? Or would that be too much of a hostage to fortune? Because politics is mostly governed by chaos theory, promises are tricky blighters. But politicians want our votes because they think they can do the right thing. Opposition politicians claim they can do better than the incumbents. We deserve to be told how that would work in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment