Labour Manifesto; Responsible, Credible, Visionary?

[Isitmebut]

When Ed Miliband made a passionate Manifesto speech with the main theme (manifesto front page no less) that Labour was now the party of fiscal responsibility as he was going to ‘balance the books’ and ‘guarantees that every policy will be fully funded, and will involve no extra borrowing’, he began with a outright lie.

Indeed similar to what Labour has been saying for weeks, Miliband/Balls as Gordon Brown did before them with some ‘golden rule’ and over £30 bil a year of deficit/debt spending - Labour will again ideologically ‘borrow to invest’, with as little disclosure as Mr Brown right up to their 2010 Manifesto in god knows what, as I can’t see which major infrastructure projects all the money went into i.e. energy or homes.

”'Balancing The Books' Can Mean Different Things”
news.sky.com/story/1464254/balancing-the-books-can-mean-different-things
”The Conservatives aim to wipe out the deficit entirely while Labour wants to reduce the deficit but will still borrow to invest.”

Carrying on the Miliband theme of near total NON disclosure in a General Election manifesto, Ed proudly announces that this isn’t a “list of spending policies” and that is “it is something different”, underselling the concept of ‘no political promises, no disappointment and nothing to defend’, which I would call politically unique.

But why not, as Mr Miliband disclosed that he put together the 2010 General Election manifesto - a similar document of vague policies/targets meant to solve the major problems and legacy of the 13-years of a Labour majority administration able to shape the UK to their ‘vision’ – so you’d think he’d got the hang of it by now.


Indeed needing to put the Budget Deficit on the first page so he didn’t forget it AGAIN, the 2015 Manifesto with various insignificant and badly thought out policies designed for existing Labour die hard voters - easy to remember anti wealth soundbites to be delivered at the door – the 2015 manifesto appears ‘policy gunshy’.

Is this because Mr Miliband HAS NO vision for the UK beyond taxation?

Or in opposition has he become a professional ‘opposer’ so prefers his elections (as his parliament) to attack other parties policies as unable to ‘join-up his own or defend Labour’s 13-year record?

Or are there are too many Labour movement ‘factions’ in disagreement to credibly and honestly TELL THE ELECTORATE what Labour will cut, what they will spend, and more important (if no borrowing), what honking new taxes there will be away from those Balls ‘protected’ – as in 1997, before the previously unannounced gold sale, private pensions raid and start of other annual tax rises detailed below.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389284/The-80-tax-rises-Labour.html

A serious problem for the Labour Party (and others) saying their policies are FUNDED, is that their whole Spending/Cuts/Taxes/Debt Reduction plans (and their effects), are based on the current healthy 2.8% growth rate of the UK economy – and the 5-year projections ahead of using numerous other variables by the OBR i.e. inflation and business confidence, which ASSUMES we will grow at around an average of 2.5% over that period.

So immediately, if Labour is unable to inspire the small, medium and large businesses to maintain that (2.5%) growth in investment/jobs/tax receipts over the next 5-years, the Miliband/Balls non detail borrowing plans, their so called ‘fiscal responsibility’, or indeed any spending plans, go straight out the window.

more

[Isitmebut]

So let us look at the key Labour policies and see if they are UK growth positive, funded, and/or just badly thought out populist soundbites.

• Raising the Minimum Wage to more than £8 an hour - Funded by whom?

The £8 rate is now promised by 2019 (previously by 2020), but the minimum wage is set by the Labour formed and fully independent Low Pay Commission (including trade unions), considering what small, medium and large businesses can afford – so if the UK economy for any reason stalls or even crashes, who will pay for this, the businesses already suffering, so will need to shed more jobs than they would have?

• Banning the "exploitation" of zero hours contracts and "legislate to say that if you do regular hours you get a regular contract after 3-months" - Funded by whom?

This is a contract that has been around since the late 1990’s and recent figures show there are about 700,000 workers on them - with a growth rate of (?) from 2010 no one seems to know when inflation was 4-5% rather than zero now - and many want to be on such flexible hours.

As many smaller companies entering into the Zero Hours contracts as cannot afford to hire permanent staff and/or predict work demand for the weeks and months ahead, this policy will add greater worker insecurity as companies will have to dismiss after 3-months, so who picks up that bill?

• Freezing energy bills until 2017 so they can "only fall and cannot rise" - Funded by whom?

When Labour was in power (and Ed Miliband Energy Minister) from 2004 they expected the private sector (energy companies) to pay to build our energy infrastructure, but left an energy generation crisis, so hardly a solid market to demand discounts.

So forgetting the shortage of generation is a major issue, if energy prices rise as fast as they recently fell, who is meant to pay for the underwriting of our domestic energy bills, the current companies we want to pay for new production, the new companies we want formed to INCREASE to promote price competition, or the government as those energy companies tell a non commercial thinking Labour to FRO?

• Reforming banks to ensure they "work for businesses again" - Another big bill?*

The last time Labour fiddled with the banks, the UK taxpayer had to nationalise banks.

• Build at least 200,000 new homes a year by 2020 with "first priority for local first time buyers" – Paid for by the banks, how?

Some air-brained idea that somehow the money from Mortgage ISA savings or bank shareholders, will pay the capital cost and take the home price risk, of building these homes.

• Taxing bank bonuses and "put young people back to work in every part of the UK” - As by legislation there is a small cash element to bank bonuses, hardly a revenue stream to ‘bank’ on for ANY policy, never mind to help they let down before..

• Bring back the 50p top income tax rate for those earning over £150,000 – Could raise a few £billion or be a net loss to the Exchequer as before, when legal tax avoidances are used e.g. pension contribution.

• End the non-dom rule that allows some wealthy UK residents to limit the tax they pay on earnings outside the country – Net, likely to cost the Exchequer money and send out a message no wealth is safe under Labour.

Where is the economic competence policies prerequisite if a Labour government needs to achieve around 2.5% annual growth to pay for services, a Labour government then puts extra uncertainty/demands on ALL businesses, almost acting like an unaware of the consequences 1970’s trade union – killing the recent confidence/recovery?

Where is the Westminster vision and policies to grow a stronger wider based UK economy so all regions become a powerhouse to rival the south, rather than like everything else, use the fat hand of the State to penalise success and generally lower the bar?

What there is in the 2015 manifesto below (and similar to the 2010 one) is a long list of small picture policies trying to pretend there is a “better way”, but as proven over two manifestos, if Labour is unable to get the big picture right to promote growth over the whole UK, what do they mean (other than before) just ‘fiddling while the UK economy lost balance and burned’ – when Labour ‘made’ over 4,300 new laws?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159

Of course Mr Miliband wants to debate other party leaders, as Labour’s tax highlights usually come AFTER the General Election, and they are proven to be ALWAYS UP, not down, for the masses.

[Isitmebut]

Hannahouse ... On the external countries growth, I love an optimist and god knows its about time, but apart from a small bounce, I had not seen a big reduction of the near 11% Eurozone unemployment rate or away from Germany, decent growth rates – especially in France and Italy, who have needed, have been told by the ECB, to reform their employment laws to a more flexible level.

At to “a lot of investment has been postponed”, I fully agree with that, but why – they don’t want a Conservative led government back, or they see huge political risk in a Labour led administration in heaven knows what coalition permutation?

Every business statement, every Labour policy that mentions business, looks negative to sustaining our current growth level under a Labour administration.

So however long it takes for businesses to be convinced Labour administration has no more surprises/taxes for them - that investment/employment and growth will not appear – so there will be a price for Miliband’s 5-year rhetoric of a trade union baron, that is likely to get him into power, but will have at the very least, unwound most the confidence built up over that time.

Especially as several of those current policies make no sense other than throw 'red meat' to get the 32-33% of red votes he'll need to be the largest party, so what can they expect next?

[Isitmebut]

Ahead of tonight’s 5-Chalenger debate, Mr Miliband made a puerile Oxbridge Student Union mistake when he accused Cameron as a no show for a “job interview” debate.

The schoolboy mistake was Cameron’s PM record is on already on his CV, in turning the UK around to a the fastest growing G7 economy last year and the current 2.8% annualised growth - when Miliband’s written 2010 CV manifesto was clueless what to do to fix their own mess – and finally how our European competitors, are not yet …. competing with the UK.

April 14 2015: Taking Europe’s pulse
www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/04/european-economy-guide

"IS THE euro zone at a turning-point? Policymakers, unsurprisingly, would have you believe so."

"They point to faster-than-expected growth in the fourth quarter of 2014: the euro zone as a whole grew by 0.3% in the quarter, and its biggest economy, Germany, expanded by 0.7%."

"The European Commission is forecasting growth in 2015 of 1.3%, which would be the euro area's best outcome since 2011 when it grew by 1.6%."

"Still, it's hard to get excited. France and Italy, the zone's second- and third-largest economies, stagnated in the final quarter of the year."

[BreakWindandFire]

Mr Miliband made a puerile Oxbridge Student Union mistake when he accused Cameron as a no show for a “job interview” debate.

Well he's right. Cameron spent years arguing that debates were good for the democratic process. Then tried to avoid debates in 2015, by putting lots of conditions in place ('won't do it without the Greens etc). When his bluff was called and his demands met, he changed the goalposts again and again, and eventually backed out.

[Isitmebut]

Hannahouse …. So please correct me if I’m wrong, you believe that the Conservative’s are offering a ‘smoke and mirrors’ manifesto;

Yet the Labour Manifesto front page STARTS with a blatant mistruth, ‘that Labour is “THE” party of fiscal responsibility’ – yet Labour are pledging to continue annual borrowing (increasing the accumulating Nation Debt) BEYOND 2020 – while he Conservatives are pledging to have a small surplus by 2020.

Please explain how Labour can suddenly brag that THEY are the fiscally responsible party, when they have OPPOSED every spending cut in parliament for 5-years (as Ed Balls promised he would) and while mumbling from 2015 ’we will reduce the deficit when possible’ - there is NO end date, or Spending Cuts beyond a few ideological cuts on ‘the rich’ (repeated every time) that won’t bring in more than several £billion?

So moving on from the FIRST page, as Miliband is saying “we are not going to offer shopping lists of policies”, he is trying to pull the same trick as 2010; offer no UK solutions/growth plans as he will be asked to itemise either the Spending Cuts (that will hardly dent the annual deficit) to pay for them,or Labour’s proven modus operandi, the numerous tax RISES that come in after the elections.

FYI when Labour controlled all those “army of Treasury officials” for 13-years, for some strange reason they failed to work out that tax receipts fall in a recession – hence the huge budget deficit of £157 billion Labour left – and show me if I’m wrong, this ‘army’ didn’t detail ANY plans to address it?

The Conservative main plans were in government, with the independent OBR (formed by Osborne as clearly Labour’s ‘attack dogs’ got to the Treasury when in power) looking over their figures, HENCE they release honest headlines re the effects of cuts, the opposition parties feed off.

Labour’s ‘debates’ without policy substance, pathetically consists of ‘the few’ or ‘millionaires tax’ soundbites, from the Labour Party hypocrites who put the top rate up to 50p after 12 years 11 months in power – and allowed Private Equity firms etc, to pay 10% (later 18%) Capital Gains Tax – so what’s the point?

As for Conservative “unfunded” promises, unlike Labour, they won’t attack the private sector that pays for our services into a slump REDUCING funding options, so e.g. similar to the £several billion extra a year they found for the NHS in the last parliament, unlike Labour they will have the flexibility of growing tax receipts.

P.S. Miliband showed his complete ignorance of market forces, by letting slip in the debate last night that we will force Private Landlords to offer 3-year Tenancy Agreements and may cap rents – totally forgetting private landlords have ‘the right to sell’ if they don’t like the fat hand of government telling them what to do if they don't agree.

[Isitmebut]

Hannahouse .... I was answering YOUR incorrect points one at a time, so I understand you didn't have anywhere new to go, but OK;


So is the forcing of all Private Landlords to offer new contracts he mentioned last night, in the Miliband 2015 Manifesto, or is this ANOTHER ideological raid (like higher taxes) to be hidden from scrutiny/debate – only to rear its head AFTER the General Election?

The Private Rented sector overtook the council/social provision a while back for the first time ever.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10800343/Labours-rent-cap-row-how-renting-has-grown-in-charts.html

So similar to populist but commercially unworkable Labour ‘reforms’ IN the manifesto, if they get it wrong for votes, it can have a major consequence – especially as Labour policies (or lack of) REQUIRED Private landlords to take up the housing slack. And to lose those rental properties when clueless how to fund their 200,000 new homes a year policy, could cause a housing rental crisis.


As Labour from 1997attacked savings in private pensions so savers were looking for alternatives, oversaw an asset price boom (including homes) with loose bank money, offered Capital Gains Tax at a tapered low of 10%, failed to encourage builders to build (130 social homes only in 2004), and in telling us only 19,000 economic migrants might come here in 2004 when around 3 million did creating DEMAND – the Private Landlord’s were not only ENCOURAGED by Labour to Buy To Let , there would have been a bigger rental crisis if market forces had NOT stepped in.

According to Shelter by 2010, even with the Private Sector helping, 1.7 million families (5 million individuals) needed social housing – with 1.4 million children in bad housing.

Clearly reforms in private rental are always needed, but once again if Labour having created a huge problem needing the private sector money, then by Venezuelan Presedenti dictate, tries to force Landlords to offer 3-year Tenancy Contracts and capped rents (no matter what landlord mortgage funding costs are) – not only will EVERY PRIVATE TENANTS HOME BE AT RISK to the landlord selling up, with a then shrinking stock of rental properties, they’ll struggle to find replacement tenancies.

[Wassat]

isitme do you work in politics?

[Isitmebut]

For the fiftieth time, NO; why does someone who has been on this earth nearly 60-years, has 3-children who will be affected after 2015, follows near global politics/markets closely as my pension was screwed by Labour so now 'self invested' - and LIVED through the RESULT of the 1970's and recent Labour administration - be a worry ASKING DETAIL to the party keep insisting THEY WANT TO DEBATE their policies????

In other words, but so what if I was, if nothing is 'slight of hand', the Conservatives had just been accused of?

[Isitmebut]

Mr Miliband often says (in speeches and debates) that the Conservatives are only for ‘the few’ and those in the South are the only ones that benefits, but the link below shows that the growth is widespread so another mistruth.

Yet I see nothing in the Labour manifesto to carry on Osborne’s ‘vision’ of a private investment ‘Northern Powerhouse’ with the energy, HS2 railway etc projects – but do see a v-e-r-y long manifesto list of fat government projects/assemblies/laws, seeming to repeat their previous economic unbalancing mistakes.

Is this because Miliband can not work with the Private Sector, so needs all his ‘growf’ from public sector spending e.g. the mysterious ‘investment’ promised to carrying on budget deficit borrowing from 2015 to 2020 and onwards?

Feb 2015; ”Growth map of the UK: How the North West is catching up with London despite capital's economy growing 3.7% in a year”

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2956127/North-West-s-growth-catching-London-capital-s-production-output-grows-3-7-12-months.html

”London was the fastest-growing region of Britain last year as the UK economy clocked up its best performance since the financial crisis struck, according to latest figures.”

”Output in the capital rose by 0.7 per cent between October and December and by 3.7 per cent in 2014 as businesses in the City of London and at Silicon Roundabout thrived.”

”But the report by Royal Bank of Scotland shows there was no ‘North-South divide’ with the North West and East Midlands the second and third strongest regions with growth of 3.1 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.”

”‘Growth over the past year for many regions has been at or above the historical average,’ writes RBS economist Rupert Seggins in the report.”

”‘With labour markets continuing to heal across the UK, 2014 should be chalked up as a success for the regional economies.’”

[GentlyBenevolent]

I do wonder if this is a sensible use of the Tory online marjeting budget...

[RiojaHaze]

Gently

[Isitmebut]

So no debate with a voter currently renting and worried what Landlord policies to follow WHICH MILIBAND MENTIONED LAST NIGHT, with 3 grown up children needing to buy and worried (if Labour could not previously build homes with an enlarged £600 billion government budget) how will they fund the promised 200,000 a year to alleviate demand with a £90 bil deficit - and worried that all the taxes are going to AGAIN be blown on bloated government INCREASING, the deficit?

Take away the populist soundbites, Miliband has NOTHING to build on what has been done over the past 5-years, to SOLVE their rubbish legacy.

[AndWhenYouGetThere]

Might I suggest you start a blog? This doesn't really seem to be a discussion.

[Isitmebut]

Early days on this thread, but as Mumsnet doesn’t have scratch and sniff (so other posters can’t smell my arm pits), it must be that posters either agree with what I’m saying, or have no answers to my challenging the ‘smoke and mirrors’ they’d like us to believe – yet accuse other politicians of being deceitful.

Now I’m sure if we started a post called ‘bedroom tax’, we’d be on page 7 by dinner time, but I’d bet my bippy that few posts, if any, would mention the state of the council/social homes supply prior to May 2010 - key to understanding WHY that rather blunt emergency plan to free up as many of the 800,000 council/social spare bedrooms for ‘the many’ needing them – why is that?

Especially if 9/10ths of the posts are saying let the party back in that in a ‘time of plenty’ were spending several hundred £billion a year, but neither listen or acted on a 2004 report they commissioned - by spending a few £billion in the social housing recommendation.
www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing

Isitmebut this board is about INFORMING women of the facts, rather than (as far as politics are concerned) being the mouthpiece for only one party or another, especially if they either try and bully/censor others opinions – especially if they have an agenda in hiding a piss-poor record/manifesto which will affect ALL our lives for a generation?

Until 'ideology' pays the country's and our own bills, why worry about a factual debate, especially when ASKING for one 20 times a day.

[GentlyBenevolent]

Actually this is clearly the BEST possible use of their dosh. Keep it up. And bill them loads. I'm sure you are making a real impact (ask for a payrise).

[Isitmebut]

Still nothing to add to the debate poster and no one has the right to ask uncomfortable questions?

After last nights 'Gang of Four' talking of 'progressive' politics and not working with the Conservatives from no matter what - with 'chief cheerleader' Miliband and his policies now the bookies favourite to set the policy agenda of our politics from 2015 - I'd rather have answers to my opening post(s) key policy questions, 'hows it going to work' & 'who's going to fund it' e.g. on the energy price freeze.

All of them call deficit reduction 'austerity', all of them have the mantra 'lets borrow to invest and create jobs' - without any detail in between if public sector or private sector - yet all ideologically can't cope with 'profit' and classing every medium to large business as 'the few at the top' so come up with a spectrum of regs/taxes.

*IMO 'progressive' politics can only sustainably work if the private sector pays the bills - and if the Miliband anti business policies here are the blueprint, it explains why they will all NEED to 'borrow to invest and have the English parliament to do it.

[Isitmebut]

P.S. Instead of trying to discredit me, why not just wait for someone from Labour with half a brain to come along, and EXPLAIN their own policies?

[Isitmebut]

Ha ha ha ... the IFS had in the Times the other day that Labour's plans left voters "clueless", or was it that Labour was 'clueless', possibly both - but here was one the IFS prepared earlier.

"Top economist warns Labour will borrow extra £170 billion^

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Ed Miliband's public spending plans could leave the Treasury unable to intervene in the event of another banking crisis"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11341489/Top-economist-warns-Labour-will-borrow-extra-170-billion.html

"Ed Miliband could add £170bn to the national debt by 2030 if he is elected later this year, a leading think-tank has warned."

"Labour's commitment to easing swingeing cuts to the public sector could mean less room for manoeuvre in the event of another banking crisis, said Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson."

"Writing in the Times, Mr Johnson argues that shadow Chancellor Ed Balls' economic plan would result in increased borrowing and possible long-term financial insecurity."

As to debating/smearing Ed Miliband, the man is a habitual liar as proved by the first page of his manifesto (and nearly every speech he makes full of class driven soundbites), and as in complete denial about Labour's last record screwing 'the workers', he hardly makes for an informative debate.


The IFS also told the UK a while ago that Labour's claim people are £1,600 worse off is complete rollocks, but as Rachel Reeves proved today STILL REPEATING those figures (panicking about the still falling unemployment figures), how can anyone debate with such a party who will say any untruth for votes?
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11484316/George-Osborne-Ed-Milibands-cost-of-living-election-pitch-has-been-demolished.html

”Mr Johnson said that the Tories and Labour are using two different measures to assess living standards.”

”Labour has claimed people's gross earnings are £1,600 less than they were in 2010, while the Tory figures are based on disposable incomes.”

^”Mr Johnson said that while there is "much truth" in both figures, Mr Osborne's figures give a "fuller" picture of living standards.”*

”He said that the figure on gross earnings does not include pensioner households and "ignores" the taxes (cuts) and benefits.”

I know tax CUTS are alien to Labour, but who puts their salary on a table BEFORE tax cuts? lol

[Isitmebut]

Hannahouse .... as to debating with Ed Balls, famed for advising Brown in 1997 to sell our gold, raid pensions and put up Housing Stamp Tax from a Flat 1% AFTER the election - *in 2010 he was STILL advising his colleagues NOT TO TELL THE TRUTH before an election;

June 2010; ”Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the (2010) election”
”Ed Balls today lays bare his differences with Alistair Darling accusing him of costing Labour the chance of winning the general election with his stubborn refusal to rule out raising VAT.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7825548/Balls-accuses-Darling-of-costing-Labour-the-election.html

And this was Labour's more ethical Mr Darling's version of events;

“Alistair Darling attacks Gordon Brown's election failures”
www.scotsman.com/news/alistair-darling-attacks-gordon-brown-s-election-failures-1-821511

”In a pointed reference to Mr Brown's mantra of "investment over cuts", he will use the same phrase to illustrate how he believes the party lost the support of the electorate. He will say: "Labour lost because we failed to persuade the country that we had a plan for the future. What is important now for our party is we take stock and be honest about what went wrong.”

"By failing to talk openly about the deficit, and our tough plans to halve it within four years, we vacated the crucial space to make the case for the positive role government can play.

"You will only convince people you've got the answers if they believe you know what the question is in the first place. You can't have political credibility without economic credibility."



So fast forward to 2015 we have Shadow Chancellor Balls, with a strategy of disingenuously ruling out several tax rises this side of the election for electoral gain, but in fact giving no credible Labour deficit or spending reductions, or tax rise plans, at all.

[blacksunday]

Tory HQ Propaganda-bot