First Steps For Change

Oh dear. Out of the frying pan, yet shortly into the fire.

Can we note anything from the framing of prospective government policy to entice that cross in our box come voting day?

With imminent General Election looming, it appears the odds-on favourites to form the next UK government have gone backwards with their pitching.

As 'freshly' announced this week, there's six 'first steps for change'.

Back last year, they heralded five 'missions'. These 'pledges' are confusingly different, whilst purported to be along the same lines.

Still, there's a point to take straight away here.

In the same vein as challenger administrations often win by claiming to bring change, even abrupt, jolting, turnaround, there's typically a similarly alluring headline we must promote.

Tap into the direction of travel. Ride the zeitgeist. The fuel behind the chief exec's journey.

Beyond that though, there's detail.

Which can be crucial. Providing the 'head' proofing to the already swooning 'heart'.

The objective problem with these half-dozen above though, is their lack of depth.

Should you be so inclined, there's sadly little meat to put on the bones of your desire.

Take the first. And as occupying top slot, you'd imagine positioned as their major priority.

Who wouldn't vote for 'economic stability'? It's a classic example of a meaningless platitude.

Alongside a footnote. Reassuring that future taxes would be “as low as possible”. So no wriggle room there, then.

We must not sound like our opponents.

As an aside, I realise I've a minority mindset yet as I've railed before, stability for me tends not to be the friend of progress, prosperity or protection.

Then the second. Moving on, if we can, from the inescapable fact that the one thing holding back the land of my birth is its pandered, dysfunctional, socialist health provision, the stated aim to reduce waiting times is again, hollow.

By how much? It's a fair question. Unanswered.

In fact, emptiness applies to each bullet.

Three, four and five all generate moans of missing the mark of real problems that exist around them.

Aspirations at expense of firm commitments. Ambitions over targets. Attitudes not measurable process.

The last one with actual numbers, for instance, offers the carrot of 6,500 more teachers. As if there's been no constant drive year-in year-out whatever the colour of those in charge to attract more into the role. Recruits consistently below targets. And when you learn those presently fronting the nation's classrooms total 570,000, you sense what a drop in the ocean this 'extra' represents. Just at the time learner numbers are set to rocket.

What I suspect frustrates the electorate in the main, is - when polls suggest replacement as so clearly wanted - how vaguely the contender sells itself.

That alone, could well be a plan. And I note with intrigue they try to angle these as a "downpayment on change". Giving leeway to amend, expand and defend further as and when required.

But for us, even as incumbent provider, we'd seldom have such luxury. Complacency a shortcut to loss.

Yet the structure is a winner.

The banner on which they'll buy.

Followed by a handful of specifics which our implementation will happily deliver.

Have you worked out such pledges with your prospect?