With an election imminent, it is important party policies and manifestos are objectively costed and tested

Detailed election manifestos have been a feature of the Irish political landscape since at least the 1970s.
While some voters have an almost tribal allegiance to a particular party, irrespective of its stated plans, others choose between competing promises in deciding who they give their votes to.
Of course, given that coalition governments are now the norm, the final programme for government that emerges after an election represents a compromise between individual parties’ pre-election promises.
Every summer, departmental officials now offer political parties the opportunity to cost individual policy options, at arm’s length from the government of the day who are not shown what the opposition has in mind.
The Tax Strategy Group, established in the mid-1990s, also publishes assessments of the costs and benefits of different options, mainly but not exclusively on tax matters.
Most political parties have chosen to submit at least some of their policy proposals for independent costing by the Department of Finance or the Parliamentary Budget Office in advance of an election, giving some quality assurance to voters.
The Netherlands has been providing independent assessment of party manifestos in a structured fashion for 40 years. In advance of an election, parties choose to submit, not just individual proposals, but full manifestos for assessment. This is carried out by the Central Planning Bureau, a body along the lines of the ESRI that, while part of the finance ministry, is similarly independent.
Initially, such assessments were limited to budgetary cost and the likely impact of proposed measures on national income and employment.
However, over recent years the Dutch officials have also looked at the implications of different policy packages on poverty and income inequality. More recently, the Dutch Environmental Protection Agency has examined the environmental implications of the different political offerings.
Because all of these assessments are published during an election campaign, they play an important role in informing public opinion in the Netherlands. This independent evaluation provides much less space for “fake” news on party proposals to gain traction.
However, because of the disparate political landscape in the Netherlands, it has been common for at least eight separate political parties to submit manifestos for independent analysis in the run up to an election campaign. This has caused resource problems for the Central Planning Bureau, not least in order to have Chinese Walls between those assessing different proposals so as to ensure confidentiality, and to get the complex assessments involved done in time.
The last Dutch election was won by hitherto political outsiders, where most of those involved had not submitted their manifestos to prior detailed examination. This added to the difficulty in forming a coalition government, which required big changes to be made in the unrealistic promises made by some of the participants.
It remains to be seen whether the recent Dutch election marks a long-term move away from the custom of submitting manifestos for independent assessment. The short-lived Liz Truss administration is a salutary reminder of the risks of implementing proposals that have never been subjected to any independent reality check.
Independent assessment of political proposals is just one safeguard for the voting public. Serious and independent media outlets are also crucial in informing the public of the outcome of these assessments.
Good journalism will exposé policies that don’t add up, and put hard questions to the parties involved. It’s equally important that serious media highlight where parties have shied away from having their proposals costed and evaluated independently.
Emotional appeals, not just rational choices, can also influence voter behaviour. Some mainstream media outlets, like much of the UK tabloid press, or the US Fox News, can magnify negative campaign themes, like fear of foreigners or the dastardly EU.
Serious journalism has suffered most, however, from the decline in traditional media. Many people now receive their news, and many of their opinions, largely via unregulated social media, whose algorithms can act as an accelerant on fake news.
If these are the sole, or main source of information for the voting public, it can be very difficult to tell truth from fiction.
When the Republican candidate in the US, Donald Trump, espouses the nonsense that Haitians are stealing your pets for food, the sad residue of this big lie is that many US voters will perceive all immigrants as dangerous.
To date, Ireland’s traditional media has remained strong and vibrant, and can be expected to hold parties to account. Online, the Journal.ie’s fact checks form a valuable public service. So hopefully, our imminent election will be one where policies are costed and tested objectively, and where truth matters.