A week in politics is a long time, so they say, which means that four weeks of electioneering is going to seem like forever.  Unfortunately, this suggests that the political process is not the ideal system for dealing with long-term matters.  The politicians seem to be genuinely bewildered by what appears to be public apathy, but the sad fact is that many voters are disillusioned.  They might care passionately about some or even all of the issues, but have come to regard an election as meaningless.  Indeed, the public's interest was sparked only by the punch thrown by John Prescott.  Is this the way to deal with the 'Yob Culture', or this evidence that 'Yob Culture' reaches to the highest level?  But getting back to basics, whichever party is elected the country is unlikely to be very different.  For a short while there might be a greater or smaller tax burden; more or fewer nurses, policemen, and teachers.  But by the time of the next election we will still pay too much for inefficient or inadequate services.  

The problem is that longer term projects that would really make a difference are not really of interest to the short-term politician.  New hospitals, schools, motorways, etc. are expensive and controversial, and by the time any benefit is felt the politicians responsible will have moved on.  If we are to remove the credibility gap it is time that decision-making for long-term projects was removed from the political arena.

One of the first visionary acts of Gordon Brown, on becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to delegate decisions on interest rates to the Bank of England.   This removed the temptation for future Chancellors to meddle with interest rates for short-term political gain.  Whilst eminently sound in principle, however, it implied that ministers are indeed tempted to make decisions on inappropriate criteria.

If capital spending were also to be removed from temptation, perhaps by the establishment of cross-party committees, this would provide more time for politicians to look at medium term policies.  No doubt they will still make short term promises, all too easy to break, for recruitment of more nurses this year could be followed by fewer nurses next year, but what about the decisions that are not so easy to reverse, that will affect the nation for a long time to come?  For example, does this country's destiny lie with Europe or with the United States of America?  Surprisingly, the leading parties remain silent, prepared only to talk about peripheral issues.  But as the USA retrenches, and the world order moves towards continental power blocs, Britain cannot seek Pentagon defence protection and settle into European domesticity if other European countries reject 'Son of Star Wars'.  This could well be the single most important decision ahead of the June election.