Do manifestos matter?

From what I hear from Labour NEC members the Manifesto is as riveting and almost as long as War and Peace.

Another senior civil servant I know said that the longer and more verbose the document the less factual content it actually contained!

I also understand that the Labour Party manifesto makes no commitment about VAT but it also does not say much about the substantial cuts either.

The first time I was eligible to vote (1979) I went around Cardiff and got everyones' manifesto. Or tried to...

The Labour Party - had to turn the office upside-down to find one, and it was rather dog-eared and scruffy!

The Conservatives - tried to SELL me one (30p as I recall).

The Liberals - apologised that the entire shipment for Wales had got lost on the train between London and Cardiff.

Plaid Cymru - gave me not only their manifesto but a cup of tea as well.

I kept them all after the election was done. At the time, my father was the head civil servant in Wales... and a few months later, someone in opposition complained about something the government had decided to do... despite that very same thing being in the opposition's manifesto! I have a good memory, but was also able to produce the manifesto to back it up. My father asked if he could borrow it to show to his Minister... but I refused, as that was politics and something a civil servant should keep out of!

How many electors read manifestos before they vote?

Is not it also the case that what is in the manifesto is neither a promise nor a firm pledge?

If so then it is all a waste of space!

Only one matters really, I suppose; the one of the party that wins.

VAT is without a doubt the weapon of choice for all parties. That pachyderm in the living room is that massive debt. Tories seek to recover by allowing people to choose how they spend their own money. Labour will stick, limpet like, to 13 years of "they" know best. That that is not true is palpably obvious for all to see. As for Labour and manifestos, they are historically a manifest failure and meaningless.

They can come in handy if you run out of bog paper!

Considering Labour's recent record on manifesto commitments I would imagine any of these documents should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

"Do manifestos matter?

The answer is "Yes but...".

Yes but the media prefer to concentrate on the personality, the image, is the leader long sleeved or short sleeved, how many babies has he kissed today (and how many babies cried as a result), the election when the media actually bother to deal only with the policies rather than personalities will be one for the history books.

Much has already been made of granite and plastic, single and double jaws, which of the three wives is best, the list goes on, perhaps by Friday (when all main manifestos will have been published) the media will give up on this puerile, immature, fixation on the people rather than the pure policies and politics of the election - we are going to elect a government, not Mr and Mrs Universe...

Manifestos would matter if we had a political class that regarded them as commitments to be honoured. Given the proven personal qualities of the current crop, they are only worth a giggle at the false postures the parties adopt in the run up to the polls. No chance of them becoming legally binding I suppose - thought not.

"They don't reveal the promises that parties then break, such as freezing the top rate of income tax."

What you really mean is they don't reveal the promises they intend to break, which is why they don't put them in the manifesto! And in the case of Labour it's not worth the paper it's written on. After all they have a history of breaking promises, like the manifesto pledge to have a referendom on the EU treaty that was in their last manifesto! And look what happened they changed their minds - why? I'm guessing because they realised they would lose the vote!

Should we Trust Labours manifesto.

Remember Labours last election Manifesto promise for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Not there because they intended to do it - there to deceive the electorate.

There will be a lot of promises and weasel words over the next few weeks - very little honesty, just deliberate lying to win votes.

We've been here before with Labour, and last time we believed them!

It seems that manifestos do matter.

For example, you could promise not to raise the basic rate of income tax and allow a compliant news organisation to report it as a promise not to raise tax rates.

This would give the general public the impression that you had promised to do something that you clearly hadn't promised at all.

The Labour and Lib Dems both promised a referendum on the EU constitution. From this I would say neither of their manifestos can be trusted. It had nothing to do with unforeseen circumstances and everything to do with denying the people their say.

I doubt vacu-Dave can be trusted on this matter either but at least he did not blatantly break a manifesto pledge. I still expect him to be in thrall to the European Union if he wins.

I've never seen nor read a manifesto but like the rest of the population I would rather see a short-list of bullet points then everything is black and white without shades of grey.

Do manifestos matter?

Yes, but... No.

#12. At 10:19am on 12 Apr 2010, West-Wales wrote:

"Should we Trust Labours manifesto.

Remember Labours last election Manifesto promise for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."

Factually incorrect, it promised a Referendum on the European Constitution.

Of course that leads on to what the differences are between a "Constitution" and a "Treaty" but such a discussion would be off topic here.

Yes a manifesto would matter if it actually said something realistic in a simple language voters could understand - and the party then kept to its pledges.

But New Labour has a bad track record where that is concerned. This weighty tomb is short on ideas and long on wind. Reads like a Blair witches brew of all style and no substance?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-labour-launches-blair-witch-project.html

This from Miliband2 on Breakfast earlier " We aren't making you any promises, that is why you can trust the promises we are making"

Manifestos matter (at least the manifesto of the winning party) and so does the voting system. I love the excitement of First Past The Post, 650 mini races each with its own character, but it does have drawbacks; the "wasted vote" aspect being the biggest. Take me, for example, my seat is a Lib Lab marginal (Conservatives a poor third) and so my vote only counts for something if I go for one of those two. So what happens if I wake up on the morning of May 6th feeling like a bit of a clown? I just stay in bed?

I'm not sure you are right Nick with the assertion that Tony Blair had any intention of retiring mid-term when the 2005 manifesto was written; indeed didn't he protest at the time he'd serve the full term.

Circumstances can change, manifestos are probably of little use beyond the first two years.

#20 sagamix
'First Past The Post... does have drawbacks; the "wasted vote" aspect being the biggest.'
Hmm. Like a vote for Labour or the Conservatives ot the Lib-Dems perhaps?

"Factually incorrect, it promised a Referendum on the European Constitution.

Of course that leads on to what the differences are between a "Constitution" and a "Treaty""

In summary:
The Lisbon Treaty is written in a more complicated fashion and with more cross referencing. It also lost the nation-like flag and anthem (which are being used anyway). That is about it except it is called a treaty so they could pretend we did not need to have our say.

I would say it is also very on-topic as it shows technically how easy it is weasel out of a manifesto commitment.

Personally I would say that anyone blatantly breaking the SPIRIT of a manifesto will never receive my vote ever again.

I've been wating all morning to hear you Nick, or anybody at the BBC for that matter, when referring to today's labour manifesto, refer to the fact that Gordon Brown *went to court* to establish that manifesto promises mean nothing.

Labour got a *court* to declare that manifesto commitments mean nothing. Grasped that Nick? In which case, why on earth are you treating anything they say today with any seriousness?

Waste of time. To be honest, we can ignore anything that happens from now till polling day, that's all that counts. There's a saying I recall from my old bike racing days - referring to the endless yammering and fudging and what-iffery that takes place prior to a race: "When the flag drops, the bullsh*t stops". When the flag drops Nick, when the tyres touch the tarmac, Labour are going to get slaughtered. Eviscerated. All the chit chat and rigged polls and BBC propaganda aren't going to stop it. Even a pitiful performer like cameron, despised by any decent Rightie, is still going to wipe the floor with the odious Brown. I predict a 110 seat majority.

Manifestos would matter if we could trust those that produced them.

Does anyone remember "We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, and have legislated to prevent their introduction."

How about the promise on the European constitution?
Before anyone says the Lisbon Treaty is not the same thing as the constitution I would remind them that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, admits they are pretty much the same document, but differently worded.

Mark 8.

I'm not sure what Labour Manefesto's were for the last three elections (without looking) and therefore could not tell you which promises were delivered on and which were not. My guess is that quite a lot of previous manefesto's were indeed bought into legislation.

So surely, the answer is yes, they do matter even if 5 years later or more we can't remeber what they were.

Saga- Still C14 but no votes have been wooed by The Marriage Tax Allowance.

The key thing about the manifesto these days is that all the "Hey guys, here's our latest idea" (read from the back of the beer mat they scribbled it out on over lunch).

This is particularly important these days where Labour are being accused of stealing policies - I am hoping that the Tories will now emerge from the bushes with "OK, here are our REAL plans which we couldn;t mention until you set yours in stone".

It also has to be said that the Labour manifesto is a joke. Once again they promise not to raise income tax - so what? As long as they have NI which is an income tax in all but name these days, any such promise is totally worthless. NI used to be a levy in that you got entitlement to the NHS, to unemployment benefits and a worthwhile state pension but now the pension is peanuts, if you don't qualify for JSA you get other benefits from a tax-based fund instead and... the NHS is open to all and sundry including holidaysmakers and even those who came here pretending to be on holiday but in reality were here for the free treatment ahnd-out.

So please - spare me the "no income tax rise" "pledge" - and they didn't even stick to that. They raised the top band and abolishe the 10p band. What a bunch.

And they will keep business taxes "as low as possible". That is so vague as to be totally meaningless. Except to imply that they have not in the past kept business taces as low as possible. I have a vision of them sitting in their little office saying "Well, we probably don't actually NEED it but let's have a few quid more from business for a rainy day".

Total tripe the whole thing.

But you got one thing right which I've been saying for a long time now. Most of the decisions of the next 5 years will be about things we have not even seen yet. The key issue is to elect leaders we can trust and even if there are people who don't feel certain that they can trust the Tories, one thing is for sure: we cannot trust this government:

1. Illegal war
2. Failure to suipport the troops with adequate equipment
3. Sleaze - selling themselves for lobbying
4. Slippery NI rises and failure even to stick to their no 'income tax rise' pledge
5. Failed to peoperly regulate the banks and caused a world-wide financial disaster (when you are responsible for regulating the world's major financial centre you cannot claim that it's just a global problem, "Not us, guv" doesn't wash.
6. Have since failed dismally to control bank excesses - lending at 5% to 8% while paying savers 0.5% means that they are being allowed to pass on their debts to their customers. Shame. We need a bank rate that defines the allowed differential between lending and saving rates.
7. Removed the "national interest" test for takeovers that would have prevented the takeover of Cadbury and probably some of the banking acquisitions we have seen recently, notably by Santander.
8. Sold off the gold reserves at rock bottom prices.
9. Raided the pesnion funds in the bull market years thereby destroying final salary pensions probably for all time.

I could go on. But isn't that enough for anyone to say that it IS time for change? This election is about nothing more than voting out a governemt with a truly abysmal record and nothing else - that is the priority in front of us at the moment.

A manifesto should be used to lay out the party's general philosophy for the forthcoming parliament but obviously needs to allow for wiggle room to cope with events as and when they arise.

In a mature democaracy we should also be able to have report cards throughout the parliament's term detailing the progress on the manifesto pledges - but our country is certainly not mature enough to have such a system without it descending to the party political farce that we only currently have to deal with every 4-5 years.

So Blair decided to 'retire' half way through his latest reign, did he, Nick? News to me, old boy.

If I remember rightly, a coup d'etat took place by the present incumbent. Or was I wrong?

BBC - Re-Writing history is what we do.

Shame people didn't read and understand the Conservative manifesto in 2005. If they hadn't voted for a Labour Government we wouldn't be in this mess.

It clearly demolishes the claim that this is a world-wide recession. The problem that Britain has is that there is an underlying structural deficit funding Brown' false economic competence. Any incoming Government has to resolve that problem.

Boilerplated said: "Factually incorrect, it [Labour's last manifesto] promised a Referendum on the European Constitution."

Factually incorrect, yourself, I'm afraid. Labour's 2005 manifesto promised a vote on "the new constitutional treaty" and then repeatedly used the word "treaty" to describe it. One might weasel that Lisbon was not a "constitution" but since it contained 95% of the old EU constitution (at least) only the truly mendacious or moronic would claim it was not a constitutional treaty.

And only the truly and totally dishonest would ever then claim "we didn't promise a vote on a treaty" when they had promised exactly that. Then again, this is the same party which describes doubling the national debt over four years as "halving the deficit" so it's alas not surprising.

Their exact words last time out?

"The new Constitutional Treaty [!] ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence. The Treaty [!] sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty [!] for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

9. At 10:09am on 12 Apr 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"Do manifestos matter?

The answer is "Yes but...".

Yes but the media prefer to concentrate on the personality, the image, is the leader long sleeved or short sleeved, how many babies has he kissed today (and how many babies cried as a result), the election when the media actually bother to deal only with the policies rather than personalities will be one for the history books.

Much has already been made of granite and plastic, single and double jaws, which of the three wives is best, the list goes on, perhaps by Friday (when all main manifestos will have been published) the media will give up on this puerile, immature, fixation on the people rather than the pure policies and politics of the election - we are going to elect a government, not Mr and Mrs Universe...

--------------

But if you are to accept (and surely you must) that the manifesto is not worth the paper it will be printed on...

Since it will be torn up and ignored, a list of dubious promises to try to get elected rather than an actually battle plan...

What use to go on what the parties are saying their policies will be? Surely the only thing remaining is to vote for the one who's conscience and competence you trust the most, since what he does after the election might bear no resemblance to what he says before.

Two recent manifesto promises to have been broken are the referendum on Europe and income tax (which is to be raised for all, hidden not so subtlely in NI). I'm sure there is a long list of broken manifesto promises, by this and previous governments, it might be fun if someone could invest the time to produce one.

Sad that the latest manifesto from NuLiar (sorry NuLabour) had to have "legal guarantees" that they would do what they propose. Just goes to show that MPs' promises are vacuous and not worth the paper they are written on any more. Anyone believing this nonsense needs a wake up call.

According to Labour and unfortunately the courts a Political manifesto is like a "letter of intent" not worth the paper they are written on. So perhaps it will be useful as a door stop.

"So what happens if I wake up on the morning of May 6th feeling like a bit of a clown?"

I guess you'd just think to yourself "same as always, then".

How are you coming along with that list of the "missing" 15 Tory front bench Old Etonians? (same goes for you VofR)

Wouldn't want you to get the reputation of someone who believes anything they are told (so long as it suits their own prejudices, of course)

#20

"So what happens if I wake up on the morning of May 6th feeling like a bit of a clown? I just stay in bed?"

You could catch the next flying pig to Narnia and live there happily ever after?

They should matter, of course, but as has been proven all too much in recent history, they don't.

Given that parties aren't even properly pressed by the media to answer questions as to why they've broken manifesto pledges either, they're especially pointless.

They might as well just make a big list of massive tax cuts and incentive giveaways, publish that, and then when they get voted in, turn round and say, "Oh sorry, we didn't mean it really, we only said that so you'd vote for us."

For me, the Lisbon incident demonstrated more than anything else the pointlessness of any manifesto that gets published from now on.

I'm afraid that Nick Robinson's answer to his own question "Do manifestos matter?" reads like a substandard GCSE answer.

Anyway,...

Manifestos manifestly do NOT matter, because they have no enforceability.

On occasion, past governments' actions have been in stark contrast to the policy agenda the respective parties presented to the country in order to gain power; yet, if any party has to renege upon a manifesto 'undertaking', there is a catch-all defence - that circumstances have changed!

9. At 10:09am on 12 Apr 2010, Boilerplated wrote:
"Do manifestos matter?
Much has already been made of granite and plastic, single and double jaws, which of the three wives is best, the list goes on, perhaps by Friday (when all main manifestos will have been published) the media will give up on this puerile, immature, fixation on the people rather than the pure policies and politics of the election - we are going to elect a government, not Mr and Mrs Universe...
......................
An odd take on the matter, given that we currently seem to have an unelected government of one - Gordon Brown - back in the days of collctive decision making and collective responsibilty (yes remember those?!?) the policies might have mattered but now we have laws (and wars!) being made up on the personal whims of muppets like Blair and Brown it is a good idea to give these people's personalities' a good look. I'd like to see an in depth psychological review of all the main canditates before voting. If we had access to this type of info we might have had a better handle on Blair's god complex or his aversion to telling the truth. Might have saved a lot of lives!

What worth Labour's promise not to raise Income Tax, when everybody knows that they will simply raise NI instead?

23. At 10:45am on 12 Apr 2010, Freeman wrote:

Personally I would say that anyone blatantly breaking the SPIRIT of a manifesto will never receive my vote ever again.

----------------

Agree with you in principle dear chap, but do you realise this means you will need to find a new party or independent to vote for every time there is an election?

Point scoring aside, there are times when manifesto pledges genuinely need to be broken because circumstances have changed. I do not think a single parliament will pass without a pledge being broken at some point.

This last Government has turned manifesto's into a waste of paper.We just dont believe a word thats written in them.

If they want to get our trust back, make it a legal requirement to introduce all pledges within 12 months otherwise an election is triggered...it would cut down on waffle and save a few tree's at the same time.

Manifestos aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Just how many manifesto pledges have Labour broken?

In 2001, they promised not to raise the basic rate of income tax. They then raised national insurance (and claimed "well, we meant PAYE, you should have read the small print").

In 2001, they promised not to introduce university top-up fees. Then they introduced them.

In 2005, they promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Didn't happen.

In 2005, they promised a smoking ban in restaurants but not in pubs. Then they banned smoking in pubs as well (personally, I'm very glad they did so because going to the pub is much more fun now, but even so I still recognise that it was anti-democratic)

In 2005, they promised not to raise the basic or top rate of income tax. The top rate of income tax went from 40% to 50% just last week.

Did I miss anything?

This, by the way, is not intended as partisan Labour-bashing. I have no doubt that the Tory manifesto will be just as unreliable. As a little foretaste of what the Tories can do, remember that when Dave was elected leader, he promised to end "Punch & Judy politics". Have you ever seen him at PMQs?

#30, skynine wrote:

"Shame people didn't read and understand the Conservative manifesto in 2005."

I read and understood the Conservative manifesto, but it didn't encourage me to vote for the Party at that time.


As to whether manifestos matter, it rather depends upon whether one is disposed to believe politicians' promises.

Any parliamentary candidate will do and say virtually anything, within the limit of the law, to gain sufficient votes to be elected MP.

"AndyC555 wrote:
It seems that manifestos do matter.

For example, you could promise not to raise the basic rate of income tax and allow a compliant news organisation to report it as a promise not to raise tax rates."

Now that is unfair - the news organisation might not be compliant they may just be unable to understand the difference.

Some in the media have trouble walking and talking at the same time trying to understand complex tax systems would be well beyond them.

It saddens me that trees will die so this rubbish can be stuffed through our letter boxes. I wonder what the carbon footprint of a general election is? Never mind, doubtless we (the proles) will be bullied into producing less carbon dioxide so that politicians can go on generating *more*. An utter waste of time, and an insult to the electorate; if a company issued a bogus prospectus it would find itself in trouble, while political parties expect to issue bogus prospectuses with complete impunity. :(

"Boilerplated wrote:
#12. At 10:19am on 12 Apr 2010, West-Wales wrote:

"Should we Trust Labours manifesto.

Remember Labours last election Manifesto promise for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."

Factually incorrect, it promised a Referendum on the European Constitution.

Of course that leads on to what the differences are between a "Constitution" and a "Treaty" but such a discussion would be off topic here."

So you wouldn't have a problem if, say the Tory manifesto had a promise that the "Conservative party would hold VAT at 17.5%" only for the party to rename themselves the "The New Conservatives" and increase VAT to 30%?

andy @ 35

14 Tory front bench spokesmen went to Eton, as did a further 3 who work in his private office. As I say it shows an admirable lack of political nous to be unconcerned about this.

The Labour manifesto, like all the others, will be pored over by the news/political media - who are the only ones really interested - then detailed in boring news bulletins for a couple of days, then quickly and quietly filed under "fiction" like all their predecessors. Caledonian Comment

I understand in the Westminster village that telling a, "Brownie," is shorthand for making a statement that a few days later starts to look like something rather less than the full truth.

If the Labour Manifesto is anything like Gordon`s budget speeches then there will be enough Brownies to fill a cake shop!

It will be interesting to see what he says about tax. He may say that the tax bands will stay the same; but you can raise an awful lot by adjusting tax allowances up or down.

Brown has said an awful lot about protecting front line services; but one must be in la la land to think he is going to carry on financing and inflation proofing the schools, NHS and the police budgets at the rate they are now. For front line, read just just that. There will be a review of all three post a general election if Labour were to win to see exactly what in each of these public services is a, "front line service".

Labour (Blair and Brown together) have been past masters at breaking Manifesto pledges so I for one won`t be getting too excited by today's event. The only people getting exercised will be the political correspondents. It will be an awful lot of paper that will be going from the front door mat straight into the recycling bin - which is rather an apt place for all things Labour.

"mrnaughty2 wrote:
Mark 8.

I'm not sure what Labour Manefesto's were for the last three elections (without looking) and therefore could not tell you which promises were delivered on and which were not. My guess is that quite a lot of previous manefesto's were indeed bought into legislation."

Many of the plans that New Labour have for after the next election are actually pretty close to plans they had before the 1997 election! Firm commitments in the manifesto were actually broken or twisted in such a way that they could be got around. From memory a vote on the European Consitution was a manifesto commitment (which was got around when it became the Lisbon Treaty), I also think a promise not to raise income tax and not to introduce top up fees were also in the manifesto.

Labour actually went to court to argue that manifesto commitments shouldn't have to be honoured!

An election manifesto is just a pretty dull work of fiction, if you want to read a fantasy book there are better ones out there!

48 I'm no more worried about that than I am the fact the number of Scottish Cabinet Ministers there are. Who are responsible for matters such as healthcare and education for which they have no direct electoral responsibility having devolved this away.

48 - "14 Tory front bench spokesmen went to Eton, as did a further 3 who work in his private office. As I say it shows an admirable lack of political nous to be unconcerned about this."

Name them.

You have Cameron, Young and Letwin.

Name the other front benchers who went to Eton.

** ELECTION CALL **

We started at C36. Week one movement as follows:

the NI issue ... +C15
bed and breakfast gate ... +C3
Cameron saying the "great ignored" ... -C18

Net move of NIL.

We're still at C36.

"AndyC555 wrote:

How are you coming along with that list of the "missing" 15 Tory front bench Old Etonians? (same goes for you VofR)"

I wouldn't hold your breath Andy, I remember Saga going on about the Tory front bench being full of Old Etonians a few months back and challenged him to find out exactly how many there were - I never heard back so I guess that he did some research and found that there were far fewer than he thought!

I don't think it really makes much difference with the manifesto as there is no legal obligation. From any of the parties that I've heard from so far theres so much guff its almost pointless.

So far I've received the most mailings from the Lib Dems (who are second to Labour in my constituency with the Cons in third), and a good half of it was more about attacking the Conservatives failings rather than saying what they would be doing. I've had a few bits and bobs from the Torys but as of yet not even a flyer from Labour so I'm losing even more faith in them if they can't even send out a acknowledgement that I'll be voting.

20. At 10:37am on 12 Apr 2010, sagamix wrote:
'Take me, for example, my seat is a Lib Lab marginal (Conservatives a poor third) and so my vote only counts for something if I go for one of those two.

If you vote for labour, you would be voting for corruption, as it has been the hallmark of their time in office.

It started off with the Bernie Ecclestone donation and tobacco advertising in 1997.

And finished with Byers, Hoon & Hewitt offering to influence policy for money.

Manifestos are irrelevant if those elected to manage them are fundamentally corrupt in the first place.

"sagamix wrote:
andy @ 35

14 Tory front bench spokesmen went to Eton, as did a further 3 who work in his private office. As I say it shows an admirable lack of political nous to be unconcerned about this."

So no actual list then? I don't want to say that I don't trust you, but like Labour I have to go on your record.

Where is this list of old Etonians on the tory front bench?

Is it in the same basket as the list of tory posters on here who have eaten a dead baby and taken an all expenses paid by Lord Cashcroft holiday to the upper toffs paradise of Belize?

This is just the usual newlabour spin machine on overtime; innuendo with an intent to smear as Lord Mandleson calls it.

Well go for it. I have my name down for a Cashcroft funded trip if he's noticed me. I take the view that despite having no connection whatsoever; the good Lord Cashcroft will ahve been made aware of my efforts on his behalf and the party's behalf. Please Lord Cashcroft don;t take me for just another 'Anyone but Gordon' - it's so much more than that for me.

I'm now waiting patiently for the Cashcroft funded tory manifesto and its elaborately dressed up ways to bleed the public sector dry. I'm waiting for the opprobrium of the left wing press as headline after headline tells of some care worker who may lose their job. And then there are the eight million economically inactive to interview about their 'feelings' with respect to their loss of benefits.

Taxi for Brown!

Do manifestos matter?

They are basically wish lists which are meaningless without any detail of how they will be made into reality.

Does anyone else think that the cover for the Labour manifesto looks as though it might have been produced by either (a) breakfast cereal manufacturer or (b) the Soviet Union in its heyday?

Under NuLab, my employer has taken an 8% pay rise, while we plebs got 0.5% (this is in the public sector). Is this what Labour means by a future fair for all? Under NuLab, the national debt has ballooned and will balloon yet again over the next 4 or 5 years, leaving all future workers, including my son, with higher taxes and interest rates to repay for at least a generation. Is this what they mean by a future fair for all? Under NuLab, around 70% of all new jobs since 1997 have gone to workers born outside the UK. Is this what Brown means when he says British jobs for British workers? Is it even a future fair for all?

Meantime, the happy family beaming back at the rising sun over unblemished fields appear to be content. Perhaps they are envisioning a day when NuLab is reduced to a rump, with Brown pensioned off to the IMF. Now that would be a future I would welcome.

mark WE,

"Labour actually went to court to argue that manifesto commitments shouldn't have to be honoured!"

This is Tory spin. They had to to defend a frivolous lawsuit from a tiresome "Lisbon" publicity seeker. There's no difference between Labour and Tory in their approach to the manifesto. Clearly it would be impractical to make them legally enforceable; they'd become so full of caveats nobody would be able to understand them.

"55. At 11:42am on 12 Apr 2010, Mark_WE wrote:
"AndyC555 wrote:

How are you coming along with that list of the "missing" 15 Tory front bench Old Etonians? (same goes for you VofR)"

I wouldn't hold your breath Andy, I remember Saga going on about the Tory front bench being full of Old Etonians a few months back and challenged him to find out exactly how many there were - I never heard back so I guess that he did some research and found that there were far fewer than he thought!"


Oh well, more proof that Sagamix as a person is as hollow and empty as his ideas.

Unless he can disprove this by listing those other Old Etonians.

Come on sagamix.

Brian at 50
"It will be an awful lot of paper that will be going from the front door mat straight into the recycling bin - which is rather an apt place for all things Labour."

Have to disagree with you there Brian, I wouldn't want to recycle anything of Labours at the moment in case it contaminated something that might actually be usefull. I'm going with the much more responsible way of burning it, or binning it.

Manifesto: Definition.
"A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature."

It's simply that politicians see the contents of theirs as being merely the last of these, and that will go double in the aftermath of the current financial situation. Personally, the word Jackanory comes to mind.

I loved in it that infallible guide to British politics "Yes {Prime} Minister" when Hacker had made diametrically opposite promises to two colleagues:

Hacker: I can't keep both promises.
Bernard: Well, They were only political promises.
Hacker: What do you mean?!
Bernard: I mean, like your manifesto promises: People...understand.

So true. Anyone who treats the manifesto contents as promises, rather than intentions, should come with me to London: I own a bridge there and I'm trying to sell it.....


Alan T

"sagamix wrote:

the NI issue ... +C15
bed and breakfast gate ... +C3
Cameron saying the "great ignored" ... -C18

Net move of NIL.

We're still at C36."

Does anyone else have the mental image of Saga sitting in their mother's basement with a clipboard polling a number of Barbie's and Action Men?

Aren't political manifestos brilliant?


Except we know they are created by people who deal in terminological inexactitudes and tactical misrepresentations for a living.

Considering the number of broken promises over the last 13 years I'd suggest a Labour manifesto is just about worthless.

Manifestos matter because they offer a rough guide to what a party will try to do in office. They matter because they are the best guide to a party's current thinking Nick Robinson, BBC

Learning a lot today. Such as "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation." Which should mean.. not worth ANY of the inevitable MSM gush.

Plus a new one from Miliband E. for the list of weasel 'bites' that shout 'bite me!': 'It is my firm intention...' meaning anything but, and of course no consequences.

Shame few of the general public will hear much challenge to these outside of these blog threads.

I guess I could try 'the cheque's in the mail' to the Revenue and Capita when they come around, as there is a precedent. What are my chances?

"Stephen wrote:
Does anyone else think that the cover for the Labour manifesto looks as though it might have been produced by either (a) breakfast cereal manufacturer or (b) the Soviet Union in its heyday?"

Guido's site has reproduced some old Conservative election posters which look pretty much the same!

Labour should NOT be promising not to raise income tax. This is pandering to the Great Ignored. Same old story and will just kick off the same old (depressing) cycle whereby they do all sorts of other undesirable things in order to "stick to" a committment they should never have made. If our economic and fiscal position requires income tax rises then there should be income tax rises; ruling it out makes no sense except from the point of view of electioneering. Parties promising no tax rises or - even worse - tax cuts should LOSE votes; if the GI (who are always complaining about being treated like children by politicians) grew up a bit, then this is what would happen. As long as people act like children ... such as rewarding parties who make silly tax promises ... then they can't complain if they're treated that way. IMVIO.

"sagamix wrote:
mark WE,

"Labour actually went to court to argue that manifesto commitments shouldn't have to be honoured!"

This is Tory spin. They had to to defend a frivolous lawsuit from a tiresome "Lisbon" publicity seeker. There's no difference between Labour and Tory in their approach to the manifesto."

In other words "Labour actually went to court to argue that manifesto commitments shouldn't have to be honoured!"?

Don't really see how you can think that Labour going to court to argue that their manifesto commitments shouldn't have to be honoured is Tory spin.

Unless you think that Tory spin is actually spelling out things that happened? Personally I would disagree as I think that the Tories would quite happily bend the truth for their own purposes.

Which would be different to Labour spin which is taking things which were true and changing them to be things which aren't actually true?

The Lib Dems seem to have done the same thing with their VAT poster - claim the Tories plan to increase VAT regardless of the fact that a) the Tories haven't stated any plans to increase VAT and b) the Lib Dems haven't ruled out a VAT increase either!

Labour broken manifesto promises?

Here is a list of 105 broken ones from 2005

17#

Regardless of the technicality, to deliberately treat the public like mugs for not knowing the difference is fundamentally dishonest, when if they truly were the party of the people, they should have still given the electorate the opportunity for a referendum.

At the time of writing of the manifesto, it was the former; by the time it came round to being enacted, because of the initial rejections by some member states, it had become the latter. Like I said, regardless of this technicality to attempt to wriggle out of such a commitment is fundamentally dishonest.

And if you cant trust them on that, what can you trust them on?

PS Nick

Any comment about Labour trying to Blackmail Doctors into supporting them - using an e-mail that is only available to them for work i.e. One that Labour should have no access to

First the cancer letters
Then this

You might say it seems to be a breach of the data protection act, I could not possibly comment.

Don't be boring Andy (53), I'm not a public information service. If you want to play this "name and shame" game we should flip it around; you name the ones who didn't go to Eton and we'll deduct that number from the total to get those who did.

Waiting.

48. At 11:30am on 12 Apr 2010, sagamix wrote:

andy @ 35

14 Tory front bench spokesmen went to Eton, as did a further 3 who work in his private office. As I say it shows an admirable lack of political nous to be unconcerned about this.
-------------------------------------------------------

Why?

"Bill_De_Zas wrote:

And if you cant trust them on that, what can you trust them on?"

When it comes to Labour we can't trust them full stop. My general feeling is that if I feel like I am being treated like an idiot by a Politician they must be going for the "Idiot Vote" (which is fair enough as it is a massive block vote that can win elections). However, as I am not an idiot I tend to look elsewhere.

The problem is that all three main parties tend to be going for the idiot vote and I have no idea what any of the other candidates in my area stand for!

Only this arrogant Labour government could unveil a promise on income tax only days after the new 50p tax rate came into effect, a broken income tax promise from 2005, and still keep a straight face.

Since the URL has been moderated - here it is without the link.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

I feel that this document is relevant to the blog as it specifically relates to Nick Robinson's comments about the Labour manifesto promises.

Let us get back to the most important bit of this election - at some time, whichever party wins, the debt has to be repaid.

Anybody who has a mortgage over 25 years will know that you pay back far more than you borrow. It follows that the faster you repay your debt, and the earlier you start your repayments, the cheaper it is in the end.

So let us have one tough year - cut and cut again, then repay chunks of the debt as funds are available. Then we can talk about spending.

The Tories will have my vote. I look forward to the debate, it should be interesting, but please don't let Gordon Brown start reeling off his lists.

I think your expectations for a new Tory government might be running a little "hot" there at 59, Robin. We'd be electing David Cameron not Vlad the Impaler.

"if the GI (who are always complaining about being treated like children by politicians) grew up a bit, then this is what would happen. As long as people act like children...."

Ah, the mask is slipping....I can understand the frustration though. "Why doesn't everyone realise I'm right", you think to yourself. You try to educate them, it's soooooo obvious that you have all the asnwers, you think. And yet, they don't listen. And it can't possibly be because you're wrong, can it? So it must be THEIR fault. And so your concern turns to frustration.

Funny thing is, they don't even notice you there. You desperately hope something will go wrong. THAT'LL teach them! But it won't and life will go on as normal and all your ideas will remain just that. Your ideas.

faintly sad, faintly pathetic.

#62, sagamix:

"Clearly it would be impractical to make them legally enforceable"

Why? Sure, they'd have to cut out the meaningless drivel and instead write specific and measurable objectives, but that would surely be a good thing?

I would vote for any party that promised to make manifesto commitments legally binding. Although obviously only if I thought they really meant it.

48. sagamix
andy @ 35

14 Tory front bench spokesmen went to Eton, as did a further 3 who work in his private office. As I say it shows an admirable lack of political nous to be unconcerned about this.
====================================================

Perhaps the extent of the unconcern is because your statement simply isn't true.

There are apparently 3 of the shadow cabinet that went to Eton - David Cameron, Sir George Young and Oliver Letwin. 3 out of 31 is less than 10%, and this is somewhat less than the 54 % you quote. Can you name the others ? There's apparently so many of them it should be easy to name them or even one of them ??? Surely a well informed clear thinking progressive such as yourself can manage this ???

18 of them went to independent school, which is perhaps what you really mean. Independent school - not Eton.

This was investigated in the link below :

https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/conservative+cabinets+private+school+past/3489697


You seem to be showing an admirable lack of political nous on this one yourself.

Really saga, your creative mis-use of numbers and statistics to prove your hopelessly flawed points of view has now reached the stage where it warrants a branch of mathemetics all of its own - sagamaths perhaps ?

#27 my first line should of course have read:

The key thing about the manifesto these days is that it ends all the "Hey guys, here's our latest idea" (read from the back of the beer mat they scribbled it out on over lunch).

The words "it ends" were omitted from the original post.

I suppose if you look at them as what they are which is advertising. They might provide an insight if you compare them but not on their own. They can't really promise anything and maybe they all take advantage of that fact? No use talking about Labour's manifesto's when all parties will bend the truth. To imply that Labour are uniquely doing so is in fact also bending the truth disproving the idea. They are similar to advertising for products like washing powder and headache tablets. "No product works better"(Because they're basically the same with different branding).

You keep on spinning for those Tories, Mark - at 72 and countless previous; they need every bit of help they can get. Mountain to climb, electorally.

I will tell you what you want to hear and what you expect to hear to get your vote. Once in power I will do what I like for the next four years and then start the cycle all over.

Manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are made to be legally binding. Because as we have found over the last twelve months or so Our honorable friends are not so honorable after all.

Who was it told a court ""Manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation"? That'll be the Labour Party.

#40

And where is the journo that has pushed them on that point? "Mr Brown you have promised not to put up income tax - which is a fair tax - but will you make the same pledge for national insurance and vat. If not, why not."

We *should* be putting income tax up to pay for the mess Brown has got us into.

It is fundamentally dishonest for any of the parties to state that they can address the deficit without increasing income tax and making some cuts.

Income tax is fair in that it taxes according to ability to pay, if income tax is ruled out indirect taxes, which I assume can can be the only alternative, affect those on limited and fixed incomes most.

"sagamix wrote:
Don't be boring Andy (53), I'm not a public information service. If you want to play this "name and shame" game we should flip it around; you name the ones who didn't go to Eton and we'll deduct that number from the total to get those who did.

Waiting."

Well as you were tasked with proving you weren't making up figures shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

After all even Gordon Brown uses figures to try and prove he isn't lying.

mitcham @ 84

But circumstances change, don't they? When circumstances change, so should policies.

76 - Truly the most pathetic post you've posted and that is saying something.

You make an accusation but can't back it up and then resort to that.

You just lack the grace to admit you are wrong.

Sad, pathetic.

Mark_WE, you were right. He's made something up, you've caught him out and then he waits a while and just makes it up again.

Is this what CTP is about? Making stuff up and then running away when challenged?

You really are a sad joke.

Well Bill (77), because it shows that one doesn't understand the ramifications, or one does but doesn't care. Either represents a quite enviable lack of political nous.

Sounds like quite a strong manifesto to me.

Radical reform and real help for poor people and families as opposed to the Tories phoney tokenism with the Married Couples Allowance.

The best manifesto Labour have released since 1997 in my opinion.

If manifestos were a product politicans would be prosecuted under the trades description act as they definitely do not do what they say they will do on the box.....

You actually LIKE (83) Labour's income tax promise do you, Andrew? A little surprised at that. Man of the World like you. Didn't have you down as one of the Great Ignored.

No, they won't adhere to it, it's just PR and posturing and another tome to gather dust on the party faithfull's bookshelves - or worse.

Brown must know he is drinking at the last chance saloon. He is presenting as downbeat, solemn and uninspiring. This is just window dressing. Most people have a view of him with a vile temper.

Are they allowed to hold a political meeting in a National Health Service building I wonder. Surely this is not legal?

Anyway, I think most people have made up their minds and the future is certainly not orange, purple, red or brown.