Will it Work: The best and worst policies of the 2024 election campaign
It’s an election year. Politicians are giving us a barrage of policies. But we often forget to ask the most important question: will they actually work? In this column Sam Fowles take policies on their own terms and asks whether they solve the problem they’re supposed to solve.
Happy Election Eve! For the past six weeks politicians have tried to convince us that they hold the answer to the country’s woes. Now it’s decision time. To celebrate, here are “Will it Work’s” best and worst policies of the 2024 campaign.
Most likely to work: Labour’s plan to reconceptualise the high street
Regular readers will know this column gives each policy a mark out of 20 (based on electoral appeal, value for money, effectiveness, and originality). Labour’s plan was our top scorer, with (a very creditable) 15. The strength of the policy lies in its clear-eyed acceptance of change. Rather than trying to turn back the clock to a time when retail was exclusively conducted on the high street, Labour plans to empower local people to purchase empty shops and re-fit them for community projects. If properly executed, it could restore the high street as an essential public and community space while allowing people to keep the price and convenience benefits of shopping online. It addresses both the economic problem (the decline of the high street) and the social problem (erosion of community space).
Least likely to work: National Service
The Conservatives and Reform battle it out for Will it Work’s lowest marks (much like in the national polls…). Reform’s plan to “cut out waste” doesn’t identify what it will cut. This, alone, would be enough to leave most economists rolling their eyes. Reform, however, decided to pair it with a plan to immediately stop paying interest on Bank of England reserve accounts. These provide the main day-to-day liquidity to the financial system, so the ensuing withdrawal of funds would likely cause a liquidity crisis. The plan got an (embarrassing) 3/20.
But Farage and co were pipped to the post by Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives The government’s own view of its “National Service” plan (swiftly hidden from the public once the policy was announced) was that it will “damage morale, recruitment and retention.” The Navy’s ex-chief of staff was more succinct. He called the plan “bonkers”.
If the plan is supposed to help “social cohesion” (Sunak’s other justification), then it will be the first time in history that calling kids feckless and making them do forced labour has ever endeared them to the government. It wins “worst policy” with a pitiable score of 2/20.
Honourable mention: Lib Dem plan to reduce child poverty
This was a “snap” election, so we’ve had little time to scrutinise all the parties’ policies. Many deserved more attention, but we didn’t have space to put them in this column. Chief amongst these must be the Lib Dem plan to tackle child poverty.
Child poverty (declining steadily 1996-2010) is once again increasing. Today, 4.3m kids live in poverty. This must rank amongst the most significant of policy failures of recent years. It’s disappointing that this has been almost entirely absent from the general election debate. The Lib Dems, at least, have proposed a plan. The package of measures includes extending free school meals to all children, tripling the early years pupil premium, scrapping the “two child benefit cap”, providing specialist mental health support in every school and appointing a cabinet minister for children. Policy Engine, an independent service which calculates the impacts of policies, concludes the Lib Dem plans could reduce child poverty by up to 24.5 per cent (Labour’s plans are predicted to have a 1.3 per cent impact while the Conservatives are predicted to increase child poverty by up to 3.4 per cent). Children can’t vote in this election but will probably be most impacted by its outcome. I hope that, regardless of who ends up in power, their policies to help kids in poverty will work.
