Labour promises a choice of four or five hospitals by next year while the Liberal Democrats are offering a choice of any consultant, if cost effective.
The Tories say they will give the choice of any hospital with the option of 50% of the NHS cost to go private - a policy Labour says will cost £1.2bn. (BBC.co.uk, 2005a)
GPs will be pivotal in helping patients navigate the NHS and make their choice.
Immigration has been a big issue for a good five years for all parties. Mori's monthly political attitudes poll (BBC.co.uk, 2005b) has consistently recorded immigration as one of the top concerns among those questioned. And a recent YouGov poll found a majority saying new arrivals put pressure on public services. (Brandrepublic.com, 2005) The Conservatives pledge that Asylum seekers would not be allowed to come to the UK at all, they would be processed offshore by an as yet unnamed partner country - somewhere Labour has dubbed "Fantasy Island". The Conservatives also want to get tough with employers who employ immigrants by requiring them to post a bond, worth six months' salary, for each immigrant they employ. And they have argued that a new border police force should be set up to guard the UK's ports of entry. However the Liberal Democrats argue that immigration cannot be reduced to “simple sound bites because it is so open to misinterpretation, historic anxieties and xenophobia”. (BBC.co.uk, 2005c) They want to create a system that focuses on getting asylum decisions right first time - and provide a flexible work migration system within a European framework. The most controversial Lib Dem proposal is to lift the bar on asylum seekers working. So how important is immigration to this election? It is certainly a headache for Labour, which would “prefer its battlegrounds to be the economy and public services” (Timesonline.co.uk, 2005). But what makes immigration such an additional headache for a government trying to defend its record is how it plays on the doorstep. If levels of anger or frustration over immigration are really as high as they appear, this could have an effect on Labour's ability to get out voters in some areas, thus giving them the possible problem of losing the election. This debate as stated has been an issue for approx five years and if the elected party does not do anything about it, then the problem will not cease to exist but will grow and become a very serious as it creates security issues too. Voters are therefore more likely to vote for the party that they believe will do something about the amount of immigrants coming into the country. This belief will be a major factor in determining the outcome of the election. As stated previously immigration poses security issues, which again is another major debate in the 2005 election as the Labour party announced plans to introduce ID cards. In February, the single most important issue in the minds of nearly a quarter (23%) of the British nation was immigration and asylum seekers, nearly double the percentage who expressed concern about either the state of the nation's health care (13%) or Iraq, terrorism and the nation's defence (13%). (Mori.com, 2005b) What was different about February and the month before was that the Conservative Party under party leader Michael Howard and shadow home secretary David Davis tapped the nerve of the nation on this issue. In January 13 percent had spontaneously nominated immigration as the single most important issue facing the country and Iraq led the poll at 18 percent. This concern about immigration is reflected in the latest MORI poll (Mori.com. 2005b). Seven people in ten believe that laws on immigration should be much tougher (58%) or even that immigration should be stopped altogether (11%) This was a major factor in what encouraged people to vote the party that most reflected their view on immigration.
The other most important issue that tore many individuals apart was the war on Iraq. Iraq is the background to this election. While some will question the prime minister on the detail of his decisions, and some voters may be interrogating him about his position, “it is unlikely to intrude into the central debate between Labour and the Conservatives. But it may help dictate the tenor of the campaign, and even its result.” (TheGuardian.co.uk, 2005b) Many Labour party members felt uncomfortable about the war. Some resigned over it. It undermined trust in Tony Blair, and trust in his judgement. Some ministers are worried that this demoralisation will have an effect on their fighting strength on the ground during an election. Many local parties simply aren't in a terrific state to fight an election “MPs in seats with large Muslim populations are nervous: they have already lost two by-elections to Liberal Democrats when this was clearly a factor”. (TheHerald.co.uk) And what about those Liberal Democrats? The party opposed the war, striking a chord with many Labour supporters. The Lib Dems hope some Labour voters will switch to them. Even if they don't, the Government is nervous about the effect on Lib Dem supporters who made a tactical decision in the last two elections to vote Labour. Conservatives are also hoping to exploit the feeling among the electorate that Mr Blair is untrustworthy because of the war. They have accused the prime minister of lying over weapons of mass destruction. They may not be vocal, but there are many voters who are impressed by Tony Blair's resolution and determination. Ministers are beginning to construct a case that Iraq was the first domino that will lead to the fall of dictatorships all over the Middle East. But Mr Blair won't win many votes on the issue that has defined his second term as Prime Minister. The debate over the Iraq issue was always going to be one of the most important factors of the 2005 election, many believe that Blair’s attack on terror in Iraq was a wrong and hasty decision, where no real evidence that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction existed. This rash decision, following George Bush, was thought to be one of fundamental things that would end Blairism in Britain.
Now in 2005, the country has rebelled against a political leader many believe has betrayed the spirit of 1997. Not just over Iraq, but over things like house arrest, tuition fees, the NHS and ID cards. There is no doubt that the war and trust were the key issues of the 2005 election night, and indeed of the entire campaign. Too many voters had simply had enough of what they believed to be Tony Blair’s high-handed and dishonest handling of the war in Iraq.
Of course there were other factors in the mix. Immigration played a strong role in eroding Labour’s vote, especially in English constituencies where the Tory “dog whistle” was heard loud and clear. Many people have become fed up paying higher taxes while still waiting for real improvements in the NHS. This is especially so in Scotland where cracks are beginning to show in the machine of Labour domination.
Other key issues that helped determine the outcome of the election was the much-debated strength of the tax issue on the election. A third of the public say that tax is an issue which will be one of the two or three issues on which will help to determine how they will vote. Over half say this of health care (Mori.com, 2005c). Three dimensions drove the public votes. The first was the parties' policies and their salience to the voter's own concerns. Leading the list was health care. Two people in three said that this was very important for their decision on how to vote, six in ten mentioned education, more than half crime and pensions. (Mori.com, 2005c)
Iraq was just 14th on the list of the 16 issues (Mori.com, 2005c) with only one person in six saying it was important to them as an issue. But the results show that it played particularly strongly among students, who delivered several seats from Labour to the Liberal Democrats on conspicuously high swings, and in constituencies where there is a large Muslim presence. Labour's vote fell by three points and the Liberal Democrats' vote rose by four, above the average in these constituencies. For most other people Iraq was an 'image issue', not an 'issue issue'.
