Labour manifesto: Promise or memento?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Cameron's doing a "weepy" interview this evening. It's all happening!

I would rather they saved the paper and spelled out more on cuts to be honest.

I hope people actually take the time to scrutinise this manifesto and compare the policies of the parties.

I also hope people take into account that many of the people in the Tory Party opposed much of the success achieved by this government.

They opposed the bank bailouts and the nationalisation of the banks.

They opposed the minimum wage.

They opposed devolution for Scotland and Wales and an elected Mayor for London.

The Tories have been wrong on these and many, many more issues over the last 13 years and have since had to backpedal and admit they were wrong.

Now they want us to believe that they suddenly have the answers - but its the same people in the shadow cabinet that had no ideas or answers 5 years ago - or 4 years before that. They still have the likes of Redwood and Hague as MP's.

"In a few weeks' time it will either be a reminder of promises of a better future that you can try to hold him to or a memento of ideas that the country has rejected"

The key word there Nick is TRY to hold him to. The bottom line is that without the details on the cuts, it is going to be far to easy to turn around and state that some of these were not possible...

I voted Labour last time around and the time before and have been made promises before.

I am not convinced either that it is the points on this document that people will be rejecting, rather the party themselves and what the likes of Blair and Hoon and co have become...

There were some nasty undertones at that manifesto launch today.

Quite shocking in fact for a political party asking the people of a country to elect them back into office.

Perhaps now we will see this Labour party in its true light over the next couple of weeks.

Out of the bunker and into the daylight. Exposed for the nasty thugs they really are.

Something to keep an eye on throughout the country as this election really starts heating up.

I think the fact that it is a long and detailed manifesto is a great thing. It will show up how limited and vacuous the Tory manifesto will be.

We already know that the Tories aren't going to spell out the detail of how they will pay for their tax bribes. They can't identify which IT contracts will save money or which departments will have less staff.

The Tories in contrast to Labour just have empty promises to sell people and Cameron is the PR man trying to push them like a dodgy used car salesman.

"or a memento of ideas that the country has rejected"

... or a memento of ideas that the country didn't bother to read in the first place because they knew that they weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

I might have read the manifesto just out of idle curiosity if it had been shorter. But 76 pages of lies? Seriously, folks, I have far better things to do with my time.

Brown and his cronies are liars. No need to say anymore!

Has anyone else noticed that the front cover of the manifesto bears a striking resemblance to Lemon Jelly's "Lost horizons" album cover. Might be coincidence but maybe it's just the old Labour habit of borrowing what they cant afford.

Oh lord pray it is rejected, 13 years is more than enough.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick

'A plan for the future' - Is this the most meaningless political slogan of the election campaign so far?

OK - Gordon has a plan - so had Baldrick! For the future - is there an alternative? Apart from Dr Who can anyone else plan for the past or the present?

It reminds me of an excellent article that Anne Appelbaum wrote in June 2007 (in slate) about the US election campaign called the infuriating blandness of political speech. Worth a read if you've not seen it before.

Since 1997 I've always voted Labour - not this time

How can any 13 year incumbent party talk of renewal, industrial revolution and so forth when it has a inescapable culpability for us being in the financial mess we are now all enjoying. As for saying their manifesto is about the future, well, it's hardly going to be about the past.The vacuous imaginings and condescending platitudes of these people just beggars belief. Do they think we've all just arrived from another planet?

BBC News - UK POLITICS - Has Labour kept its 1997 promises? plus ça change...

I think this will be the manifesto that gets Gordon Brown re-elected.

The policies are positive and the choice is becoming clear.

A choice between the Tories who would look after the wealthy and wreck the recovery.

Or the Labour Party that will keep up a steady course for the recovery, provide real political reform, help for families and for the poorest.

The Tories have already been caught out on inheritance tax and their married couples allowance is an unfair tax break that won't help couples where both work, widowers or divorcees.

So, business tax is to be "kept as low as possible". Is this the most ambiguous statement ever to be published in a political manifesto? Given labour's track record over the past 13 years, are we to assume that as well as NI increases, other business taxes will also be increased? Almost certainly they are. It makes me wonder why I, as a successful one-man-band businessman, should even bother, given that by the time the government has had their cut, less than half of my gross profit ends up in my pocket. I get the feeling that I, and others like me, are paying the greatest price for 13 years of mis-management.

Promises,promises.Same old,same old.

Did you notice how many times Gordon mentioned the word "future" when he
was delivering his speech?

Cant say I blame him.

Hasnt got much in his past to be proud of has he?

Is he ever going to appear without his wife?

She is starting to look like his carer.

Voice of Reason????

"They opposed devolution for Scotland and Wales and an elected Mayor for London."

So I presume that you will be in favour of devolution for England as well. How will that stand with your leader, the Celtic colonialist, or are you in favour of the current asymmetric devolution?

Labour can't rule England without the votes of the Scottish and Welsh MP's. Work out how much of that manifesto deals in only English laws.

"...with the government helping to create skilled jobs and the People's Party promising to help us all aspire to be middle class."

But who will stand up for the poor now that they have been abandoned by Labour? Keir Hardie would not be a member of this party.

Add this to your reading list
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4816

4. At 6:27pm on 12 Apr 2010, Voice_of_Reason wrote:
I hope people actually take the time to scrutinise this manifesto and compare the policies of the parties.

**************************

No need to read the Labour manifesto. There's a 13 year record of what Labour is capable (incapable?) of doing!!
Another 5 years - no thanks!

To quote frrom the IFS report:


We therefore estimate that the "bang for each buck" that we get from public services spending has fallen by more than 13% over the same period. If Labour had managed to maintain the "bang" it inherited in 1997, it could have delivered the same quality and quantity of services that it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less - or it could have provided 15.5% more or better services for the same money.

Or to put it in words that can be understood by Sagamix and the others,


Labour is wasting over £40bn a year.

I have just watched a Labour election broadcast on Welsh TV, it was really negative all about frightening voters on what the Tories might do, flashbacks of Thatcher etc. some of it on areas where the assembly has powers not whitehall, therefore tories could not do what Labour say they would, total waste, nothing about what Labour might do theirselves which would have been better if they want to capture the undecided voter.

If I vote on May 6 I'll be voting for who I want my local MP to be. I do not elect the Prime Minister, as he or she is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen (God Bless her), as is the Government. But dear old Nick will keep on baning on about Gordon Brown not being elected as Prime Minister, even though he isn't in the first place. This is not a Presidential election, no matter how much the media would appear to want it to be, nor should it be about who has the best looking wife, looks best on the front cover of a magazine or has the biggest battle bus.

This election should be about the issues that matter - who's policies will improve the welfare of all us and not just the few, which party can restore our trust in politicians (any out there do you think?) and can take the tough decisions needed to restore your damaged economy.

But sadly it wont be, there will be no vision, no dream, no theme to bind us together.

Vote on May 6 - you're having a laugh

Three reasons for re-electing Brown:

1. He is the most experienced econimiser with the truth in Parliament.

2. He knows how to spend your pension entitlement better than you do.

3. His views on Europe are far more important than that of the electorate.

** ELECTION CALL **

B/FWD - C36.

Labour manifesto launch ... -C13.
Cameron weepy interview ... +C8.
Continued lack of Osborne ... +C5

Net move ... NIL.

Still at C36.

@4, Voice of Reason

Here here. Let the voters not forget that Camerons Tories opposed all the serious policies this Government put up, derided them in Parliament and through the media, tries to state that they would herald the end of enterprise and start a meltdown in the business world. The minimum wage, the new deal, the bailout, the stimulus, the investment in the NHS (that they'll now "Protect"), the investment in schools etc etc. The list is long and their voting record a matter of just that, undeniable record. They've been proven wrong at every turn and expect the populus to now trust them at the most crucial point in or economic future for generations? Purr-lease!!

And for those righties on here that go on about illegal wars and "Note in my name" marches lets not forget the one major intervention the Tories supported. The war in Iraq. And if Labour was wrong there, then they were too (personally I believe we did the right thing). And don't use the line that they didn't know all the facts; it is well known opposition are given access to intelligence at times like that also. They most certainly are not mushroomed.

The Tory vision is much like their leaders; vacuous and devoid of anything but opportunistic headline grabbing spin. Cameron is the shadiest of used car salesmen attempting the biggest con (no pun) job on the electorate since I can remember. We've chnged, we're not the nasty party any more, we love the NHS. If the country falls for that then they deserve everything they will most certainly get under a Tory regime. Failed services at the price of higher unemployment in the lowest earning group whilst fat-cat business leaders and the "Born to privelage" elite take the spoils for their own.

Be in no doubt that they will fund tax cuts for the rich by slicing services to the poor and middle class. Only those that have no reliance on the state will prosper. For the rest of us, well, tough. No public service is safe in Tory hands, they fundamentally disagree with the state; the responsibility is on the individual - there is no such thing as society.

Never forget; and to those that say that was in the past just remember that the current upper ranks of the Tory party were juniors in the last administration and fully supported the destruction of our public services under Thatcher & Major. We let them back in at our peril.

The Labour Party manifesto was launched in a Birmingham hospital development financed under the PFI initiative - yet more government debt saddled on the electorate.
It was also launched in Birmingham on the same day that Birmingham Childrens Hospital launched a public appeal to raise £2m for new facilities at that hospital. This is on top of the £1M that has already very recently been raised via public donations to the BBC RadioWM Kidney Kids appeal.
So much for Labour's funding for the NHS!

#4 VoR
"I hope people actually take the time to scrutinise this manifesto "

Why? None of it will happen, even if, God forbid, Labour were to win the election.

It's hard to have a conversation when it takes more than 33 minutes to moderate a very simple comment.

Clearly "Voice of Reason", isn't!?!

Is there any chance that during this campaign Gordon Brown is actually going to meet REAL voters, as opposed to carefully selected, racially profiled Labour party hacks and yes-men ? The puerile inanity of it was summed up by morons asking for their copies of the manifesto to be signed, like blue-rinsers swooning over Barry Manilow. Pathetic. Caledonian Comment

DisgustedofMitcham2

I of course meant Radon. Apologies. I had just woken up after 7 x 12 hr mixed day and night shifts and should know better than to post before a huge jug of good coffee, steak and three eggs. So as well as my indisputable error in Physics I apologise for the horrendous syntax and spelling, though not having been to Eton I wasn't aware that Rabid had acquired an extra B.

The point I intended was simply that our governments have a limited day to day control of the realities of 21st century Planet Earth and must placate an electorate who would need a sat-nav to find it.

It must be assumed that the posters on this and many other blogs, by dint of actually being able to work a computer, are to some extent educated. Their output does not encourage me to alter my long held belief that less than 10% of the electorate should be eligible to vote.

I stand by my assertion that all the campaigning is a waste of time, the difficulties and solutions to those difficulties will remain the same, the victorious party will have limited freedom of action and those actions will be minor variants of whatever the losing party would have done.

Labour try to improve the lot of everyone and care whether it happens and attempt direct action/interference to achieve this...

Conservatives believe that setting the Wealthy free will eventually help everyone, but don't actually care as long as the market survives...

Labour are often incompetent and sidetracked by the single issue dogmatists and have a penchant for petty corruption, inculcated by the devious and "back room" nature of the process by which one becomes a Labour M.P or Senior Trade Unionist...

Conservative politicians are inherently incompetent or they would be up with the movers and shakers who they represent. They do not understand the concept of corruption; its either a "Good" deal or a " Bad" deal.

Nicky, we have not had much to laugh about in Smolensk butcher’s shop this last few days – and our thoughts is go out to Poland peoples who lose President in plane crash – but idea of politics manifesto is make us laugh great intensities. What is make us vote for Putin in Russia, aside from certainty he going win (which also make us not bother vote, which is efficient)? Is it boring long book of stuff, a future bright and fair and orange for all? No! It is Putin policy of put Russia first, help middle class, low tax, space for entrepreneurs run “alternative economies” and provide efficient welfare in schools, health and protections services – without crime wave explode – stand up to West and look great in judo and hunting gear. I have not look at Brown manifesto, but I am give advice. Pledges to cut tax to close to zero rates, allow entrepreneurs, oligarchs and local protection bosses into social space, find new sources fossil fuels, rattle sabres at neighbours, and take up some form martial arts is formula for victory.

Great in it. The day the election finally comes to life. Still 3 weeks to go and plenty of time in the words of TB "John being John".

Today honours even +2 to the Blues because of relatively poor manifesto lauch and MP's expenses being bought back into the lime light.

No mention of war or free speech.
No list of things they will Ban.

Better than I expected. Steady as she goes on the economy, but given the long way back in economic recovery, not enough detail on what cuts and where. Welcome news on constitutional reform including a written constitution, referenda on the voting system and fixed term parliaments. Good stuff on green jobs, 'zero' waste and low carbon energy (although this may mean more nuclear) but overall very disappointing on climate change. A lack of leadership on this crucial threat to the globe. Read more on my Blog:-
https://paulwbmarsden.blogspot.com/2010/04/labour-party-election-manifesto.html

Nick. You say the manifesto is long and detailed. We know why, dont we, as always with Gordon Brown "The devil is in the detail"

What better way to outline 13 years of labour education.
They talk to over 18s by childish cartoons.
They must believe their education policy has failed.

And it has this is the proof.

Hmmm - memento of ideas ....

Or maybe memento mori.

The stance of the Labour Party currently appears to be:

Ave imperator, morituri te salutant.

(Hail, emperor, those who are about to die salute you) - for our less-educated readers.

And I'm a Labour supporter, but the one thing I won't forgive Blair for is (forget the war, temporarily) not carrying through with his promise of electoral reform - it's time this country grew up and learned to deal with genuine democracy and government by consensus.

7. Voice_of_Reason wrote:
We already know that the Tories aren't going to spell out the detail of how they will pay for their tax bribes. They can't identify which IT contracts will save money or which departments will have less staff.

You need to go and refresh your understanding of what a structural deficit is. Currently its about £70 billion. So the Labour party are borrowing £70 billion this year PURELY to bribe the likes of you that they are a wonderful party. This is simply money we cannot afford, and nothing to do with the recession, as it will remain even when we recover.

Now by my reckoning, this is about 10x what you consider is the bribe by the Tories.

Don't you get how you are being duped?

Don't you understand how those of us (and our children) who will have to pay for your loyalty are feeling extremely frustrated, and can't wait to vote Brown out?

16 ..How can you say "This will be the manifesto that will get Gordon Brown re-elected" and "the choices is becoming clear" Have you already read the manifestos from the other parties? Also do you vote for a party not the candidate?

#19 Skynine

So you still don't understand that devolution is not the same as independence?

How can people believe the Tories when they say that they want to give people more power when most of them are simply obsessed about having an English Parliament or the 'West Lothian' question.

Give me a break.

If your so obsessed with a fairer democracy where is your support for a more proportional voting system?

#13 ordvoter "Apart from Dr Who can anyone else plan for the past or the present?"

Actually Labour have Dr Who on their side as well - the party political broadcast has a voiceover by David Tennant and he has already publicly expressed his support.

Russell T Davies has also expressed concern at what may happen to the Beeb if the Tories get in.

The biggest issue facing this country is:

Where are the £85 billion of cuts promised by Labour over the next Parliament to come from?

These are their numbers, but they provide no details.

So, Gordon, our Prime Minister, can you please tell us? The NHS, Education, Social Security? Where will the cuts, 'worse than Thatcher' according to your Chancellor, fall?

Not providing details is as misleading and dishonest.

Until I hear some proper proposals, I don't and won't trust Labour. This is the key issue facing our public services over the next five years.

45 Why not vote for the best proven candidate and not a manifest?

Broken promises - I repeat a post I made in the last manifesto blog:

Extracts from 2005 Labour manifesto :

On page 14: ‘Forward to increased prosperity, not back to boom and bust.’ On page 16: ‘We will continue to meet our fiscal rules: Over the economic cycle we will borrow only to invest, and keep net debt at a stable and prudent level.’ Also on page 16: ‘We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next Parliament.’

And on the promised motorway building: ‘Major investment is planned to expand capacity on the M1, M6 and M25.’

The above doesn't include Labour's most blatant broken manifesto pledge - that to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Who on earth believes a word Labour says these days? I know I don't!

12 Apr 2010, Indy2010 wrote:
"I have just watched a Labour election broadcast on Welsh TV, it was really negative all about frightening voters on what the Tories might do, flashbacks of Thatcher etc. some of it on areas where the assembly has powers not whitehall, therefore tories could not do what Labour say they would, total waste, nothing about what Labour might do theirselves which would have been better if they want to capture the undecided voter."

It`s sad isn`t it but negative campaigning works.Buy a copy of tomorrow`s "Mail" and you will see what I mean.The right wing press has been running negative stories for years on the NHS,crime,education,the military.You name it and a negative angle will be found.

TV "Gives both sides" so there is no public media counterweight to this onslaught.Is it believed? The evidence shows it is by less informed and commited voters who in a volatile age are the majority.

Money buys power,power buys influence.The only countervailing power to the power of capital is on the left.

Been reading some of the back-comments.

The trouble is that it is well accepted that an awful lot of people don't deserve to have the vote - they clearly understand very little about how governing a country works.

The problem is, where do you draw the line? It's been tried before with no women, no-one who doesn't own property, no-one who doesn't vote Conservative (or have I made that one up?).

I guess the thinking remains that each ill-informed vote cast is cancelled out by an opposite ill-informed vote, thereby leaving the only credible votes cast as coming from the people who really know - or think they do - what is best for the country and the good (if dim) people in it.

I think Churchill said that democracy is the worst way to run a country, but compared to the alternatives ....

29 Good Points - but I can tell you the reason why the manifesto was launched in a hospital. It was in case of somebodys pants were on firer.

Never forget; and to those that say that was in the past just remember that the current upper ranks of the Tory party were juniors in the last administration and fully supported the destruction of our public services under Thatcher & Major. We let them back in at our peril.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Go and have a look for the net INCREASE in government spending under Thatcher/ Major before parroting phrases that are economical with the truth.

Voice_of_Reason

I admire your commitment to the Unite-Labour cause, but I fear you will never recover from stating on the earlier blog :

"Unfortunately you just can't compare Labour and the Tories on these facts - 54% of the Tory front bench went to Eton. Thats a ludicrous number. Are we really to believe that its just a coincidence?"

The number is actually 3 out of 31, which is less than 10%, not 54%. Your credibility has been blown out of the water with this "ludicrous number" in a ludicrous statement. I agree with one thing, with these "facts" you really can't compare the tories and labour ! This has set the standard for your subsequent manifesto posts, most of which are in the same ballpark reality wise.

Interesting that sagamix was the only one to support and endorse your totally incorrect statement. Very odd that you should both get this so badly wrong, with posts so close together. To quote you again "Are we really to believe that its just a coincidence?" !!!!! Sagastats and Sagamaths meets Voice_of_Reason ?!?!?

Until there's a way of ensuring manifesto pledges are adhered to, there is little point in believing in what they say. Politicians can promise the world to get themselves elected and then renege on their promises. Isn't that fraud or obtaining goods and services by deception ?

Estate agents were once the experts in distorting the facts. They were made to clean up their act. Politicians should do the same with their manifestos!

The Labour Party manifsto - Aren't fairy stories a bit 'old hat' these days?

Moderators - we're now up to 56 mins before comments get posted.

How does the BBC define 'short delay'?

'Where's my comment?All new members are pre-moderated initially, which means that there will be a short delay between when you post your comment and when it appears while one of our moderators checks it.'

Does the Labour manifesto mention about rewarding hard work, long hours and success in business? Nope. Instead, the 'reward' for success is disproportionate taxation and seething envy of the socialists/Marxists. The Greens talk about the lowest earners having a greater proportion of their earnings taken in tax - WHAT?! My business pays corporation tax and NI (more business tax). What's left for me (as the only employee) is subject to income tax (some of which will be at 40% & 50% this year) and also NI (more tax). I often wonder why I bother. Where is the incentive for me to expand and take on employees? The truth is that there is no incentive. Am I alone? I very much doubt it. Labour's punitive taxation is throttling the country. Time to get rid.

By the way, the previous comment was a complaint. Please deal with it accordingly. And yes, I do expect a response.

7:24pm on 12 Apr 2010, skynine wrote:

To quote frrom the IFS report:


"We therefore estimate that the "bang for each buck" that we get from public services spending has fallen by more than 13% over the same period. If Labour had managed to maintain the "bang" it inherited in 1997, it could have delivered the same quality and quantity of services that it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less - or it could have provided 15.5% more or better services for the same money."

As much as I admire the skills of the IFS and have used their assessments myself,their brief is one of quite limited fiscal probity. they are not an organization I would use to assess the conditions of rapid public service expansion.

In 1997,the NHS was severely underfunded at about half the level of our European neighbours so rapid catch-up was needed.Cancer and heart disease mortality was well above European levels and had to be quickly addressed because lives were at stake.At the same time productivity in service industry is extremely hard to assess because so many of the measures are qualitative.So what do you measure? Throughput of patients? waiting times? reductions in cancer and cardiac mortality,changes in the efficacy of drugs and treatments? and the expansion in the numbers of doctors and nurses by many thousands. Remember that the USA spends 16% of its GDP on health,its average standard (but not its best) does not match the NHS.

There is also the expenditure on 120 new hospitals to replace the crumbling ruins Labour inherited.Undoubtedly there are cost overruns,mistakes were made,GPs overpaid and others.But this is the tension of great social change,not the mediocrity of second rate services indefinitely prolonged.

#38 lostvoice

Don't undersell it! There was a mention of protecting children from the effects of sunbeds. Not exactly a ban but certainly a good idea to help reduce that potential health hazard.

Of course we know the Tories main concern in terms of bans is to allow the fox hunters to start killing again. Impressive that the Tories have a policy promoting cruelty to animals!

But nevermind that...Hooray for the Tories and Tally Ho!

Lets smear that blood on the nearest Etonian child's face...

Three reasons for electing Cameron:

1. He's a 'toff' and tthe Government front bench needs to go upmarket.

2. He's never had a proper job, Thus meeting the criteria set by Brown.

3. He's a PR man so his 'spin' will sound more plausible.

and three more reasons for re-electing Brown:

1. To deprive a control freak of anything to control may infringe his 'human rights'

2. It would be degrading for a World saviour to have to sit on the opposition benches.

3. By no longer having to avoid answering questions at PMQs, a quiet, padded room would need to be provided somewhere in The House every Wednesday afternoon.

42 said (Hail, emperor, those who are about to die salute you) - for our less-educated readers.

Who are the less educated readers? Please give details of your education and list the readers you consider less educated than yourself.

indy @ 24

"I have just watched a Labour election broadcast on Welsh TV, it was really negative all about frightening voters on what the Tories might do, flashbacks of Thatcher etc."

That is frightening.

Liam Fox was on the Daily Politics today - went on about having to 'protect the wealth creators'.

That in itself shows that Tory priorities - help the wealthy and don't worry about the plebs.

He also squirmed a lot about the Married Couples Allowance and couldn't really answer the question about why married couples that are both working don't get it but married couples where one party stays at home does.

Oh and apparently the Inheritance Tax break is for the 'strivers' - pointed out as a contradiction by Andrew Neill when it benefits those that inherit huge sums of money and not those that 'strive'.

Andrew Neill also asked Liam Fox to pass a message to Chris Grayling because the Beeb haven't been able to get hold of him since he went into hiding.

Very revealing interview - If you haven't seen it watch it on iPlayer.

#48 estaing

Best proven candidate? Well that would be Gordon Brown then as Cameron and Osbourne have done nothing. Actually thats not entirely true. Cameron did experience government as a junior during the ERM crisis / Black Wednesday debacle.

Unless you mean local candidates then thats a whole different and much more complex topic.

More difficult to assess the relative merits of your local candidate - you have to seek out the information on how they have voted on issues and what they have done.

However that is something that I think would be good for our democracy if more people did it.

Labour promise this, Conservatives promise that, and the others promise everything. Then as we all no none will be kept.
We need them all to get together and get back to the real world and get back to reality.
This country needs real leaders now, so lets hope who ever gets into power listens to us the people of this great country.
Come on and do the job you are voted into and do us proud.

#54 stricklypickled

I have blogged many things and I'm glad you've given me a further opportunity to point out just how posh and super rich the Tory front bench is.

There are 19 millionaires in the shadow cabinet - they will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the Inheritance Tax changes as will many finaciers of the Tory Party.

I am not a politician and neither I suspect is sagamix.

Nevertheless we can see, as can most people, that the Tories are still the party of the privileged and the wealthy.

At a time when the richest people in our society, the fat cat bankers, the speculators and the traders have all made money whilst wrecking the economies of most of the western world then voting for a party that represents the vested interests of the rich seems like a bad idea to me.

SP @ 54

"Very odd that you should both get this so badly wrong, with posts so close together."

Not wrong - front bench not just shadowy cabinet. And odd? Well I suppose ... if you find the essential mundanity of human affairs to be odd. Exciting way to live your life.

The Tory MEP for my city went to America telling them that the NHS was a 60 year mistake. When the Tory prospective MP turns up at my door is he really expecting me to swallow Cameron's lies (I'll protect the NHS)?

I believe that behind the rubber faced likes of Cameron, Osbourne and Gove there are the pompous, blustering Ken Clarkes and Boris Johnsons. The same Tories of old will appear as soon as the airbrushed dollies have done their work.

I'm not buying Cameron's lies at all. Despite all they've done I'd still vote Labour over the Conservatives any day of the week (though I'll probably vote Lib Dem).

16 Voice_of_Reason

"The Tories have already been caught out on inheritance tax and their married couples allowance is an unfair tax break that won't help couples where both work, widowers or divorcees."
================================================

Does this mean that the proposed "toddler tax credit" is an unfair tax break as it won't help couples who don't have one or two year olds, widowers or divorcees ?

Or doubling paid paternity leave is an unfair proposal as it won't help anyone who isn't going to be father, widowers or divorcees ?

I think we should be told ........

They may not raise income tax but you'd bloddy better believe the VAT will jump up !

16. At 7:06pm on 12 Apr 2010, Voice_of_Reason wrote:
I think this will be the manifesto that gets Gordon Brown re-elected.
The policies are positive and the choice is becoming clear.
A choice between the Tories who would look after the wealthy and wreck the recovery.
Or the Labour Party that will keep up a steady course for the recovery, provide real political reform, help for families and for the poorest.
--------------------------
Yes just like they have for the last 13 years. I think their slogan should be: "Rob the workers to Pay the Shirkers".

Help for families: Oh yes, Incentives for single mums to get a House.
Help for the poorest: Oh Yes, Money for nothing.
Real Politcal Refrom: Oh Yes, Jobs for the boys, and more scandels.

I hope people ignore the cvoive of reason and look at the evidence that's right in front of them. Don't be fooled by more lies!!!

#43 jonearle

I don't get why people think that cutting support for the economy will be a long term benefit even if it causes a double dip recession - which is what a lot of Tory bloggers seem to relish on here.

We need to grow our way out of recession and build up tax receipts through growth, as well as making sensible cuts. Slashing spending and killing growth will cost a lot more than the structural deficit you are talking about in the long run.

Interestingly most economists dom't agree with your opinion on this Jon either and most other countries aren't following the policy suggested by the Tories.

So apparently anyone who doesn't agree with you is economically illiterate - even when those people have studied and have a greater understanding of economics than everyone on this messageboard.

Even the IFS says the Tories NI plans and potential efficiency savings don't add up.

The background picture for Gordon's speech says it all about the manifesto - unfocused, wobbly and a lot of straw!!

66 Voice of Reason said:
"to assess the relative merits of your local candidate - you have to seek out the information on how they have voted on issues and what they have done.

However that is something that I think would be good for our democracy if more people did it."

At last I can agree with one of your comments. I Hope you will vote for your local candidate on 6th May on this basis.

In reply to Voice_of_Reason at 8.55pm Tony Blair now one of the richest men in the country, true labour was he.

Nevertheless we can see, as can most people, that the Tories are still the party of the privileged and the wealthy.
-------------------------------------------------

Therefore it is in their interest to make everyone wealthy so they will vote for them.

Labour is the party of the poor

Therefore . . .

I've read that manifesto this evening; it is not "detailed" in any way at all, it's a barely coherant mash-up of wishful thinking and pure vacuity, but it doesn't matter because, as Gordon Brown demanded from the High Court, everyone knows that manifesto commitments are meaningless.

But what I'm more concerned about, Nick, is your own position and your bizarre silence. You were booed, heckled, insulted - by Labour campaigners, Labour ministers, and the *Prime Minister*. I *saw* it happen. Why aren't you talking about that?

Why aren't you reporting that?

These people are vicious, bullying thugs - if you recall, the lobby said it wasn't going to put up with that any more. Remember school Nick? Just up the road from me, here in Macc. I dare say they still have bullies there. Remember how you deal with a bully?

Stand up Nick. Face down that despicable man, Gordon Brown. Tell the truth.

Hate is the watchword of this election. There are those who hate the Tories for what was done over 20 years ago, whether real or imagined and there are the rest of us who have a visceral hatred for Labour, and for Gordon Brown in particular, after 13 years of Labour waste, sleaze, incompetence and destruction.

It is going to be a bloody battle, a very bloody battle indeed, but let's hope the stinking, rabid corpse of ZaNuLab is consigned to history by the end of it!

2. At 6:26pm on 12 Apr 2010, sagamix wrote:
Cameron's doing a "weepy" interview this evening. It's all happening!

==========
In the interests of fairness, I think I ought to just remind you Saga, the election is on May 6th. I'd hate to see a Labour Meltdown only to be told that your vote didn't count because you turned up on June 3rd.

The problem for Labour, the Tories and to a lesser extent the Liberal-Democrats is that their fund of political trust with the English voters is totally exhausted.

It has to come down to trust and these three parties have lost it, utterly, and the non-stop barrage of propanganda over the past week or the next few weeks will not fundamentally change that.

From the mainstream political party perspective, the English voter has become a dangerously unpredictable beast, due mainly to complete disillusionment with the 'Manure Parliament'.

Each English constituency is unique and even the experienced pollsters are starting to issue unusual caveats about their predictions for the outcome.

The party is so over.

Democracy England 2010.

There are 19 millionaires in the shadow cabinet - they will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the Inheritance Tax changes as will many finaciers of the Tory Party.

How many on Labour benches? The difference is that most of the Tories got their money before they entered politics - can we say the same about multi-millionaire John Prescott? Multi-millionaire Tony Blair? Multi-millionaire Neil Kinnock?

I don't begrudge an entreprenour making money; I do resent it when a parasite politicians enriches himself at *my* expense. Labour's last weapons is a childish war of envy - "Don't vote for them, they're rich!" Well I've another one, "Don't vote for them, they're bent, incompetant, hypocritical AND rich!"

#71 stricktlypickled

Your not seriously trying to defend the married couple allowance proposals are you?

Not even the Tories have tried that. They have let the issue die because they know that £3 a week gesture politics with no substance.

The argument that £3 a week, or any amount for that matter, will help keep married couples together or somehow make more people want to get married is ludicrous. And do we really want people getting married for the money?

Then there is the fairness aspect - the fact that the money is pretty randomly thrown at people who have a piece of paper whether they need it or not.

At least the Labour Party have a principle of supporting children in whatever family environment they find themselves in - the Tories policy doesn't help all married couples, doesn't help all people with kids, doesn't help those on low incomes more.

Why don't we just spin a bottle to decide who gets a tax break? That would be fairer than the Tories married couples plan.

Strictly @ 71

Excellent point, but surely you've been on this blog long enough to know it's only Tory proposals that are unfair!

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

I hope you haven't been upsetting Go. Brown again with those ultra right wing conspiracist questions of yours - you know that Go Brown doesn't accept responsibility for anything?

First it was the 'big (economic) picture (what happened to that by the way at the BBC?)?

Then Mr Go. Brown has been saying recently it is the 'big issues' (it's a pity that no one can remember what Mr Go. Brown said what these issues actually are)?

Now it is the big question - Why would anyone in their right mind want to vote for Mr Go. Brown and his 'Wilson-ating' cloned, failed government?

Is this blog a voice box for the labour party?
Clearly they have forgotten (or weren't even born) in the 70s. If you want to relive those times then please feel free and vote labour, let's go to the IMF to get a bailout, let's allow the rubbish to pile up on the streets, let's see all the fatcat union bosses calling for strikes whilst pocketing all their members hard earned cash!

78, Nice comment Jon and totally agree. Just take a look at the train wreck labour have made of the university loan system. If ever there was an example of making poor people poorer then this is it.

Let's get more people into university and put them in debt to the tune of £20K to £30K an, just for good measure, let's make sure that the private sector cannot provide enough graduate jobs so that they can pay it back quickly.

I though Labour were the party that said "Education, Education, Education". It would be more true if they had said "Debt, Debt, Debt".

CROWDED ISLAND

I have dueto the couple of posts you have made in the last 3 blogs read some of your "Previous".

I came to the conclusion that I agree entirely with you...









in your choice of user name. Dover is at the end of the M2 and M20 or you can catch a train at Ebbsfleet or St Pancras though where on Earth your final destination would be I have no idea.

Though Russia, believe it or not; under Putin's next presidency, may well suit.

#80 CrowdedIsland

I kind of agree that there are probably about 30% of people who are solid Labour pretty much no matter what - about the same % who are solid Tory.

Its the other 40% that the 2 parties tend to end up fighting over.

However I do think that the newer generations of voters probably have less identification and affiiliation compared to previous generations as there are fewer people actively involved in politics nowadays.

I'm not saying that is a good thing or bad thing - just a comment really on the changing face of the electorate which makes every election interesting.

Nick ...make your mind up!!!!!

On the main page:-
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the manifesto specified the need for "tough choices" but did not appear to give much detail about them.

On your blog:-
His manifesto is deliberately long and detailed - evidence, he said, that Labour had a programme for the future not just what he derided as an empty slogan promising change.

I'm going to be bed now folks so this will be my last post of the night. Have to work early in the morning so sadly I can't post messages to annoy all you Tories for the rest of the night - fun as that may be.

My final point is just to point out that this election has probably the greatest opportunity to lead to reform of the voting system now that Labour and the Lib Dems are both in favour.

I do wonder whether by Labour offering this referendum it will manage to woo enough Lib Dem voters in marginals to vote Labour rather than Tory. Seems like good political tactics to me and I actualy think voting reform would be positive for our democracy.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

devil's advocate @ 81

Yes I was wrong; a very rare event and thus worthy of note. I was right really, though, in that I said Gordon would go as late as possible. May 6th is as late as possible (practically) because of these local elections. Hadn't realised this when I made my prediction.

says Haaaaaaaaaaa! Laugh I could have roared as BBC's Nick Robinson shot the Tory goose on the ten o'clock news tonight ahead of their manfiesto launch tomorrow. Whose the new member of the Cameron Team? projected on Battersea Power station - YOU, Robinson revealed as he gave the game away stealing their thunder ! They'll be furious at Tory HQ tomorrow as this was their big idea of the day! Ha Ha ! Brilliant......

66-Voice of Reason
Clearly your interpretation of "best proven candidate" is based on the fact that they are fully experienced in messing things up.

Here is what the last 13 years has done to people in this country.
1. People with Endowment now cannot pay off their mortgaes (labour policy)
2. People in the private sector now have no pensions of any value (labour policys)
3. The young who want to work hard, and go to university now have to start £30K in debt
4. No investment or support for the private sector in order to enable them to create jobs.
5. We now have to vote for more MPs! How is that cost saving? For each MP you need about 50 private sector jobs to pay taxes to cover their salary and that doen't include their support staff or their future pensions.

Remember Public sector workers do not pay tax. Their salary is made up of tax of which they give a portion back. Only the private sector actually pays tax so you need a healthy, competitive and growing private sector to enable a goverment to create more public sector jobs. It does not work the other way round.

If I am to pay more money I would rather it go to pay 3 nurses salaries than one MPs salary. We should be reducing the number of MPs not increasing them.

Mr Brown says that Labour "are in the future business".
I'm sorry, Mr Brown, but your party has already had a good, long chance to effect the changes that you wished to make. I have seen your work, and I have not been impressed.
Time now to move on.
I'm far from convinced by the Conservatives - but I think that I will have to choose their candidate in my constituency, to dislodge a sitting Labour MP.

frank fisher @ 83

"I don't begrudge an entrepreneur making money"

Me neither. So long as they don't make too much of a mess of the place.

I can't help thinking that the cover of the Labour manifesto needs some words.
What about " Take a good look at the view, my child, and imagine how much prettier it will be with a dozen concrete windmills in it"