Articles
The UK general election is only a few months away, maybe only a few weeks, and we’re into that bit of the prelims where bodies that ought to be neutral, even-handed and beyond party politics come down from their Olympian heights to say what they think the campaign should really be about. This week, there are “manifestos” from the IMechE and the EEF, and there’s also, in our PE surveys, strong indications from readers what they think election issues could and should be.
It’ll surprise no one to know that there is a degree of congruity between these various views. There’s a universal opinion among our survey readers that engineering ought to be an election issue and that many of the topics where engineering is a primary contributor, such as environmental and energy debates, are high on their election agendas. The IMechE wants, among other things, clarity on climate change commitments and decisiveness on energy options. The EEF, with a more economic bias, is looking to whichever party forms the next government to take a more balanced view of wealth-creation and a more strategic view of how it can be achieved.
So far, so good. And, you may well say, so predictable. This won’t be the first election where those people whose duty it is to say these things at this point in the run-up duly do so. And then the campaign swings into action and all these issues and fine words get lost in a maelstrom of political invective, personality cult and empty rhetoric. Why should the election of 2010 be different?
Well, just for once, it might be. For a start, more ministers and would-be ministers are talking sensible stuff about wanting science, technology and engineering to be issues in the campaign. Science minister Lord Drayson has been on Twitter asking people to contribute ideas about putting science on the agenda. “And engineering?” we tweeted him. “And engineering,” he tweeted back immediately. That seems like an invitation worth pursuing.
More than that, though, there’s evidence that in the battleground that decides elections, the debate over the economy, things are starting to get through. The need to “rebalance”, “correct”, change our economic landscape is being talked about on all sides. The EEF, as part of its manifesto, looked back to where we were 10 years ago, to see whether progress had really been made. The answer it comes up with is, no, not a lot. There’s a growing sense, in the 2010 election, that we can’t be as profligate with the decade to come.