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

why not just wait for someone from Labour with half a brain to come along, and EXPLAIN their own policies?'

Because that would be like waiting for Godot!

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

Too many posts from one individual with an obvious axe to grind.

Yeah, I remember what happened under a Labour administration, I may be alone on here - and I'm being told that the Conservative leadership are afraid of debating policies with the Labour leadership, when Miliband is pretending Labour is THE party of 'fiscal responsibility' but falls apart on the first manifesto page.

And Ed Balls with a history of assisting Brown in bringing in tax rises and a gold sale AFTER the general elections without prior announcement - and berating Darling for having integrity warning of tax rises before the 2010 general election - is capable of telling the truth in a debate, when he thinks "you can't handle the truth'.

If I was making this shit up I might have an axe to grind, but after Labour's last record (only 5-years ago), I'm one of 60 odd million who got 'grinded' by a Labour administration back then, with only soundbites to go back to where they left off, now.

None of the parties keep their pledges.

Political parties should be bound by law to enact what is in their manifesto, or otherwise hold a referendum to break it.

Otherwise, if they're not bound by what they say, democracy is absolutely meaningless.

Guffaw ... the 'art of repartee', good effort Red.

If I had a little red ball every time someone didn't like the truth on here and needed to discredit me, I'd have three Snooker sets by now.

(Did you see what I did there?)

blacksunday .. re your "None of the parties keep their pledges."

There is a wider issues mentioned here, firstly why Cameron would have any reason not to debate Miliband (or Balls vs Osborne) based on Labours 13-year record in power with ALL the money, versus the Conservatives (within a coalition with a left wing party) record over 5-years, having been passed a £150 odd billion government overspend by Labour.

Secondly many of the key Labour pledges (as mentioned in my second post) either do not make practical sense, or will be more attacks on the private sector/businesses, putting the recovery at risk.

Labour can 100 populist policies promising more/better pay for workers, but it means diddly squat if it kills the overall job market or different types e.g. most Zero Hours.

It is as if the policy detail Labour manifesto has been written jointly by a Student Union and Trade Union Congress, knowing nothing about the business real world and offering a 'shit or bust' approach; we'd rather have NO jobs than low paid jobs.

To further qualify that, look at the 'list' of Miliband policies to ensure current jobs are maintained, never mind grown into this 'high paid/skilled economy for everyone' I keep hearing about from Labour - as if there is a button to press after the Conservatives are out of government - and when you FIND that business positive list, gisashout and point it out.

Within this manifesto I see little ‘carrot’ emphasis on building up further of the private sector/jobs, although I’ll admit I have no idea what the proposed British Investment Bank (another government quango, stuffed with city salaried staff?) can do.

But see loads of ‘sticks’ for businesses, including legislation to limit the ability of businesses to have a ‘voice’ in a Westminster, run by a Labour Prime Minister and MP’s, without a business brain between them - either elected by, or sponsored for, the heads of public and private sector trade unions.

So if for some 'unknown' reason they think;

A Minimum Wage no longer set by an independent body has to go up to £8 (or other arbitrary figure) by 2019 whether the economy pan holes or not.

Or

If a government can decide to ban all zero hours contracts after 3-months whether workers want them or not, why not all Temps - and then whatever else will ‘progressively’ follow.

Isn’t there a serious danger that with all the uncertainty of a tax high and anti business rhetoric Labour administration will bring politically, never mind economically, in an uncertain world - that all businesses don’t just ‘tie down the hatches’ over the next 5-years - putting every job INCLUDING Minimum Wage or Zero Hour, at risk?

? Re Labour’s manifesto promise - Freeze energy bills until 2017 and give the regulator powers to cut bills

As Ed Miliband was the last Labour Energy Minister in 2010 this really is his specialist subject, and using that governmental inside knowledge, Mr Miliband assures us that he has the ‘power’ to freeze our energy bills whether global energy commodity prices double (as they halved over the past year), yet is unclear who would pick up the bill – the UK government, or for some reason, the energy providers shareholders.

We are told that ‘the market isn’t working’ and government can hold back the tide of market forces, but the Conservative ‘crisis’ he likes to talk about (but usually comes back to 13-years of Labour policies) ONCE AGAIN, is rooted in Labour policy – and this one in Mr Miliband’s own back yard – a market crisis of ‘supply and demand.’

In late 2012 Ofgem in their first annual Electricity Capability Assessment, warned that Britain is running out of energy generating capacity, as the spare capacity would fall from 14% then, to 4% by the winter of 2015-16.

October 2012; ”Power shortage risks by 2015,Ofgem warns”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19842401

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10428950/Power-crisis-risk-worse-than-feared-this-winter-SSE-warns.html

The problem is with nuclear reactors is there is no quick fix as it takes around 10-years of planning and building, to generate the first megawatt to replace lost supplies and alleviate potential power outages, so by that measure alone, firm decisions should have been made in the early 2000’s and the ground broken – and in 2004 Blair announced a rush for nuclear, apparently to be paid for by the energy companies e.g. EDF, I can only guess through our bills, or another PFI debacle.

So without breaking ground on ONE nuclear reactor, Labour/Ed Miliband left, as Ofgem states, a capacity problem and that we needed to secure £150 billion of investment to replace aging/closing reactors and infrastructure – as unlike France whose nuclear power generation had FALLEN to 75% of their energy generation - allowing much CHEAPER electricity to their population, than here.

Clearly when a UK government has such a crucial ‘supply, demand and investment’ problem and is using another government vs industry ‘stick’, when commercially government should be using the ‘carrot’ - it sends a huge state controls ‘what the feck’ warning signal to big businesses that they’ll be next – and that is never good for continued UK investment, job creation or new energy company competition to permanently bring prices down.

I'm voting Labour.

And you'll be in very good company, BigRedBall.

But looking at the lack of policy detail within this manifesto (and some policies Mr Miliband mention in speeches but not detailed) under a Labour administration over the next 5-years - with or without the SNP - it will be one of the most divisive, dysfunctional and economically damaging parliaments in our history. IMO.

And they still have not learned their previous lesson; in campaigning that 'the Conservatives will make the biggest spending cuts in the developed world', they still have not grasped Labour left one of the biggest government annual overspends in the developed word, certainly in Europe - yet still plan to be annually borrowing more past 2020.

Re Labour’s manifesto promise; ”Reforming banks to ensure they "work for businesses again"

I’ve just heard Mr Miliband mention within a Foreign Policy speech that The Hong Kong Shanghai Bank (HSBC) decision to review whether to remain Head Quartered in the UK (since 1992), is due to the Conservative’s policy of offering the UK people an EU Referendum – which is of course a factor, but as the Conservatives first need a 326 seat majority, the vote would be in 2017, and likely to be a ‘STAY IN’ vote – he is either blinkered, or being disingenuous.

”HSBC considers moving HQ out of UK”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32443930

”The bank said the review followed "regulatory and structural reforms" since the financial crisis”

”HSBC has also said that uncertainty over Britain's future in the European Union is weighing on its future as well as new rules which oblige banks to split their retail and investment banking activities - the ring-fence.”

I have mentioned time and time again large international businesses have to plan several years ahead, and whether they see now or in the near future, excessive taxes, excessive financial regulatory burden, what they consider employment/remuneration restraints, or a hostile business environment e.g. 1970’s UK style State controls – there is nothing to stop those businesses taking their Head Office and associated jobs and Corporation Tax payments (paying for our services), elsewhere.

Labour has to raise at least £12 billion a year through extra taxes and if anyone knows their business will be affected, it is the directors and shareholders of a major bank – hence the review.

As whether targeted themselves e.g higher Corporation Tax, or via the businesses and retail clients they serve, any economy built on government debt & spending, ends up with much higher taxes slowing an economy – making the economy a much riskier place to do any business.

Especially if there is an additional political risk of a ‘locked in’ UK anti business coalition government implementing those policies.