Sunday, 25 September 2011

The politician's promises of yesterday are the taxes of today.

"Money and corruption are ruining the land,
Crooked politicians betray the working man,
Pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep,
And we're tired of hearing promises that we know they'll never keep."
Courtesy of Politics Home we learn that Ed Miliband has promised that were it election time, in his party's manifesto would be a promise to lower university tuition fees even lower than the £6,000 cap he is currently proposing. Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning, the Labour leader said: "It's a policy we would do now if we were at an election, we'd have it in our manifesto now and we're very committed to it, but look, the election is three and a half years away... if we can do more at the time of the election, we will". Also from the same website we learn that Ed Balls is also promising that the next Labour manifesto will include “tough fiscal rules that the next Labour government will have to stick to”.

Both these men were ministers in a Labour government that made certain promises in their 2005 manifesto. Remember these (my post of 21 January 2009):
"Labour will continue to support reforms that improve parliamentary accountability and scrutiny" (page 110)

And they were going to subject their MPs to a three line whip in order to stop constituents knowing details of their expenses?

"Stronger Local Government with local communities able to make the key decisions about their own neighbourhoods" and "People want a sense of control over their own neighbourhood. Not a new tier of neighbourhood government. (page 103)

And they intend transferring control of planning from local authorities to Regional Development Authorities? Also creating 'super councils' or 'MAAs', courtesy of Hazel Blears?

"Our economic record has finally laid to rest the view that Labour could not be trusted with the economy" (page 15) Well, they sure got that bit right!

"The choice is to go forward to economic stability, rising prosperity.....with new Labour. Or to go back to the old days of Tory.....insecurity and instability". (page 28)
"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free."  (page 67)"
Whilst the Labour Party are not the only party to renege on manifesto promises, the question still remains whether two politicians who were heavily involved in the bankrupting of our nation should ever again be trusted with being in any way associated with future economic governance - or governance of any description, come to that.


PeterCharles said...

Unfortunately wrecking the economy is what modern politicians do. Denis Healey with his socialist utopia squeezing until the pips squeak and 100% tax rates, Callaghan buying off the unions, Lawson determined to keep the pound strong by shadowing the D-Marc, Major with his desperate gamble to force the pound into ERM compliance and eventually the Euro, Brown with his version of the socialist utopia, borrow, borrow, borrow.

As to manifesto promises I will simply repeat the mantra: some they intend to keep, some they intend in spirit only, some they have no intention of ever implementing and most which are simply placeholders for things the public as a whole are completely against. And not a single clue as to which falls into which category.

Anonymous said...

It is the same promises of promising us what they will give to us, after they have taken their huge cut from what they have filched out of our pockets - be it money, or freedoms to live the life we choose.


This time we have to setup a system that gives a few freedoms to the political class that will allow “them" to do what has to be done - law and order, maintenance of infrastructure, and defence of the realm.

The rest lies with us. It’s still us and them, but that too has to change.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC & DP111: Hence we need change as proposed in Constitution (4) and (5).........