As expected, both parties' general election platforms are handing out a good deal to the public.

Today's editorial looks at the Progressive Labour Party's platform. Tomorrow's will examine the United Bermuda Party's.

Certainly, the PLP platform tackles a number of important problems, not least reducing the high cost of day care and making health insurance affordable for senior citizens.

On housing, the proposal for providing interest free down payments for 500 first time homeowners will also be very attractive and would raise home ownership levels.

Free public transport could help to reduce congestion, thus cutting carbon emissions, meaning Bermuda would be doing its small part to limit the effects of climate change.

Of those proposals, free public transport would also come at a relatively low price, given that it is run at a loss anyway and would see Government lose $10 million in revenue, which in the size of a $1 billion Budget, is relatively small and could be easily made up.

Similarly, making tuition free at the Bermuda College is a relatively cheap way to provide a chance to young people, although it is to be hoped that they will see the value of something they are getting for free.

Elsewhere, however, the platform is stunningly vague and chronically short of details or costings.

Even assuming a very conservative minimum down payment of $50,000, that would require $25 million in taxpayers' money to fund it. Even then, the payments on the loan, let alone repaying the down payment, would be high, unless the down payments are only being provided to buyers of Government-built housing being sold at below market values.

That even assumes that there is demand for down payments, given that the banks have been providing 100 percent financing to qualified borrowers.

It is even harder to quantify the value of the PLP's Future Care plan. Arguing against affordable and uninterrupted health insurance ¿ and free dental insurance ¿ for seniors is like opposing apple pie.

But there can be no doubt that it will come at a cost, and the public is entitled to know what it will be.

The shambolic state of the Hospital Insurance Plan, gives little reassurance that this plan will work.

Private insurance companies charge retirees who have come off their group employer plans more for a reason: older people tend to get ill, and seriously ill, more than younger people, and the premiums are higher because the claims are higher.

To be sure, private insurers are also trying to make a profit, and it is difficult for customers to understand why they should pay more on retirement when they have often paid thousands of dollars in premiums without filing much in the way of claims during their working lives.

But the fact remains that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for "affordable" medical insurance and free dental insurance.

The PLP has a responsibility to tell the public what that cost will be so that voters can make an informed decision.

The same is true for free day care for poorer families. No one disputes that day care is both essential and expensive for most families in Bermuda. But the public deserves to know what the costs will be.

There were roughly 3,000 children aged three or younger in the 2000 Census. Assuming that 500 qualify for the programme at a very conservative $500 per month, that will cost the public $3 million per year.

All in all, there are some positive ideas in the PLP's platform. But the lack of detail makes it all but impossible to make an informed judgment on them.