Yesterday, The Royal Gazette's editorial examined the Progressive Labour Party's platform. It had several good ideas, but lacked in detail, especially on cost, although some of those gaps are being filled in.

For example, Social Rehabilitation Minister Dale Butler yesterday admitted the day care provision could cost $3 million to $4 million a year, along with a loss in revenue from tax credits to companies offering day care in the workplace.

Today, we look at the UBP's platform. It can be argued that it is less generous than the PLP in some areas, although the key plank, eliminating payroll tax for those people earning less than $42,000 per year, certainly gives up a lot ¿ some $40 million in revenue.

On education, both parties are producing broadly similar remedies to the problems of public schools, but the UBP is importantly proposing governing boards for all schools, a dramatically slimmed down Ministry and, most importantly, an independent board to measure school results, thus reducing the muddle and suspicion that has arisen over reporting of school results in recent years.

On housing, where the PLP's big idea is to offer interest free down payments to 500 families, the UBP proposes to build 500 new homes for affordable rents. It can be argued that home ownership is preferable to rentals, and indeed the PLP has.

But for the many people for whom the reality of life is simply to struggle to get from one week's pay cheque to the next, relief on rents and an increase in income through a tax cut will mean more than taking on a mortgage that will still be a heavy burden. The third major plank in the UBP's platform concerns crime, and it is this that has drawn the most criticism.

An honest reading of what is proposed makes it much less draconian than it has been made out to be. The most controversial aspects concern the elimination of the double jeopardy rule for serious crimes when clear and compelling evidence is produced and additional sentencing through the "three strikes you're out" policy.

The elimination of double jeopardy clearly does not mean that a person can be tried and retried again and again until a conviction is achieved. What it does mean is that where compelling new evidence not previously heard by a jury is produced, the court can order a trial.

It is certain that this will be tested in the courts, and it is equally certain that they will make clear rules and set a high standard for prosecutors to meet. But the change makes sense, especially in these days when DNA evidence can often be incontrovertible.

To be sure, one can have some pity for an accused person brought back for retrial. But what about the victims or families of victims who may finally get to see the conviction of a rapist or murderer who might otherwise be walking free on the streets, possibly prepared to strike again? Don't they, and the public, deserve some consideration and protection?

The three strikes and you're out law is less draconian than it has been made out to be. It simply proposes added prison time for people convicted three times of the worst offences. This is a question of deterrence and public safety, and for "hardened criminals", this may be the time when the public has to say enough is enough; rehabilitation has failed.

Having said that, judges should still have some discretion, as they do now under the "draconian" PLP bladed weapon law, to suspend a sentence when the circumstances warrant it.

There is one point where the UBP has it wrong and that is the call for increased sentences for possession of "hard drugs" like heroin or crack cocaine. Certainly, there would be no argument here for increased sentences for suppliers, but hard drug addicts need treatment and rehabilitation, not longer sentences. The UBP should rethink this. There is much more in the UBP platform, but the most radical and welcome proposals concern openness and reform of government and Parliament.

If nothing else, the current election campaign demonstrates that the current political system is close to breakdown, both in the stunningly negative approach of the PLP in particular and in its blurring of the lines between Government and party to the point where there is virtually no distinction. This follows on from the last year in which the Government has become more closed and less responsive to the public, where Parliamentary debates are often charades and where minor differences between the parties become extraordinarily divisive.

If the UBP wins power next week and enacts the proposals, it will, ironically, be weakened by them, because they force more accountability and transparency. That's all to the good. Bermuda needs an accountable government, not one in which any party comes to believe it is untouchable or inherently entitled to re-election.