The stories of today seem to be getting a little recursive. Vast quantities of hot air have been expended trying to understand Mr. Clegg’s statement of the obvious regarding the definition of ‘mandate’. The policy story having been subsumed by a process story (“LibDems Might Win Something: shock, horror!”) it’s now become a story about how the policy story turned into a process story. There have been complaints that the parties in general and the LibDems in particular have not had their policies subjected to sufficient public scrutiny. So here’s some of that kind of thing to be going on with.
The next leaders debate will cover economic issues in detail. Good. I actually spotted a surprising amount of policy in the other two debates; I say surprising because I’ve been following USA presidential and other campaigns for years. But in advance of this debate, we have already seen the prospective chancellors debating directly, and very informative it was, too. The LibDem’s Vince Cable outlines the problem and some solutions in the Mail on Sunday.
The Power of Science!
In terms of direct policy scrutiny, we have the first entry in a series examining the parties for scientific viability. David Nutt, Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, Brian Cox and Petra Boynton compose and analyse the questions. Outcome more or less what I expected, i.e. they believe in evidence. Much looking forward to how the other parties stand up to such observation.
In other news that shocks no-one the Tories do not believe in evidence. As reported on LeftFootForward, the party are still hammering away at a lie; that crime in the UK is rising. They’re still wrong, but they just won’t put it down. Isn’t that one of the definitions of insanity?