Promises, promises

We're about to be bombarded aren't we? If you listen carefully that low hum in the background is the sound of the stampede of election promises charging across the horizon as the political parties move towards May 7 and election day.

It's often, rightly, said that this is the most unpredictable election in recent memory. There is a very good chance that the SNP, UKIP, Greens, Plaid and DUP could all become important players to support a government after we've all cast our ballots.

One thing that is entirely predictable - aside from copious footage of Farage with a pint, Ed looking geeky and Cameron looking posh and awkward - is that we'll see the 'main' parties play out phony arguments based on promises they probably won't be able to keep.

The great irony of this election comes in the economy. George Osborne is proud of his economic record and wants us to believe he should be allowed to 'finish the job'. But in 2010 his party promised to 'eliminate the deficit' by now, something he has managed about half of. Funnily enough that is roughly what Alistair Darling was hoping to do as chancellor in 2010.

So here's the odd position. Osborne is now asking for a second term based on delivering Labour's 2010 aim, which he at the time opposed. But, of course, Labour will be telling you that Osborne has failed on the economy. They're asking you to vote out Osborne for doing what they'd have probably done if put back in in 2010.

Now I understand that the parties do have a different outlook on how to achieve their financial aims - the odd tax would have been different and the priorities may have meant different people felt the benefit in the pockets in different ways. But, when it comes to the deficit, you feel that the argument is more than a little silly given where we were in 2010. In fact, you do feel that things such as the deficit are a little too serious to be left in the hands of politicians sometimes...

And don't think the Lib Dems get off lightly from this. They're left in the odd position of defending a government that they were not the lead partner in. Their message is that they have 'softened' the hard-edged austerity of the Tories, while hoping we forget the now-infamous ditching of their promise on tuition fees. The tuition fee stick has often been used to beat the Lib Dems but they are also faced with the difficult record of having foregone some of their priorities for a badly handled referendum on the voting system. It never seemed that the Lib Dems even wanted 'AV' themselves and, given the fact this was rejected by voters, seems a concession hardly worth getting.

Of course outside the 'big three' the others have the benefit of never having had to have made and kept a promise. UKIP seem to have plucked a number from the air that leaving the EU would save and are using that to fund absolutely everything, for example. You do wonder, though, whether we might all be that much more cynical about grand promises if we really are entering an era of compromise and coalition.

There's no reason why compromise and coalition should be a bad thing necessarily - but it ought to be accompanied by more realism from the parties themselves. The manifesto should not be a fairy story that is torn up. It should be a rough checklist we can judge a party on by the end of an election cycle. As we've seen, if we do that for 2010 then there should be some red faces. It remains to be seen if the lessons of five years ago will be learnt at all. I've a feeling the answer is an emphatic 'no', especially as Labour and the Conservatives still battle on, hoping to return to the old two-party familiarity of the past.