What do the election manifesto campaigns mean for HR?

First, the Conservatives released a draft of the health section of their election manifesto. This was immediately countered by Labour's analysis of Conservative spending pledges, which claimed to find a £37bn black hole in their plans. David Cameron then got in a muddle over whether or not his intention to "recognise marriage in the tax system" was a firm commitment or simply an ‘aspiration', changing his position twice before finally confirming that he "definitely" remains committed to taking action in the next parliament. 

Then two former Cabinet ministers (Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt) attempted to force a secret ballot among Labour MPs on whether Gordon Brown should stay on as leader, only to be deafened by the silence from their parliamentary colleagues. High-profile cabinet ministers, including potential leadership contender David Miliband, eventually offered qualified support to the PM, who now seems certain to stumble on as leader, at least as far as the General Election.

Despite the soap-opera-style politics, some substance to debate is worth highlighting. 

The Conservatives' draft health chapter of the manifesto contains a plan to make the NHS operationally independent of government by creating an independent NHS Board, and turning the Department of Health into a Department of Public Health focusing on prevention. They propose to provide separate performance-based funding to local authorities on the basis of how successful they are in improving their communities' health.

Public health clearly matters to employers, and efforts to reduce the 173 million working days lost to sickness absence, estimated to cost to the economy around £100bn a year, will be welcome. But given that the Government has already made some headway in this area, particularly on efforts to improve workplace health and wellbeing through the introduction of ‘fit notes', more detail on the Tories' plans are required. 

Returning to the Conservatives' apparent confusion over whether to offer tax breaks for married couples, Labour claim this would cost approximately £5bn, although alternative proposals limiting the relief to only married couples with children under three would cost £600m, rising to £900m if the age limit were to be set at six.

Whether this would be an appropriate use of tax-payers' money will ultimately be for voters to decide, but employers should note that the planned tax break is not linked in any way to employment, or to work-supporting activities such as the use of childcare - unlike the existing tax-free childcare voucher system. This highlights an ideological breaking point with Labour's approach, which has focused on using the tax system to encourage people into the workforce, and instead seeks to use taxes to support the institution of marriage - signaling Conservative support for a more traditional approach to family life where one parent (usually the mother) stays at home in order to care for her children. 

On childcare vouchers themselves, the Conservatives opposed the removal of tax relief proposed by Brown in September, and which he subsequently reversed in December after widespread criticism. Under the new proposals, the vouchers will remain tax-free at the basic rate of tax for all users from April 2011 onwards.

Despite the Tories' criticism of the Government's plan to withdraw the scheme, their long-term support for childcare vouchers remains uncertain, particularly as there is a strong demand within the party for mothers who choose not to work to be equally supported by the tax system. It is possible, then, that tax breaks for married couples could be seen as necessary to also provide support for families who choose to care for their own children, as well as those who choose to work.

But with limited money available to play with, many will question whether this approach can deliver the tangible economic benefits needed to help the recovery from recession. The debate continues.

Marc Woolfson is account director at Westminster Advisers