How Labour have implemented the 2005 Conservative Mainfesto

[afleitch]

Coming next (if I have the time!) How Labour have not implimented their own 2005 manifesto.

Pensions

''A Conservative government will increase the basic state pension in line with earnings rather than prices, reversing the spread of means testing.'' Conservative Manifesto 2005.

Too costly, said Labour...But wait for it.

''And to honour those who raised us, I can affirm our commitment to restore the link between the Basic State Pension and earnings.''  Gordon Brown. 2007 Conference Speech

Health

''We will bring back matron, who will have the power to close wards for cleaning'' Conservative Manifesto 2005

Under Blair matron was indeed, brought back. So tick the box for the first proposal. But the second Conservative proposal was not adopted. At least not until...

''And I can announce that matrons will have the power to order additional cleaning and send out a message - meet the highest standards of cleanliness or lose your contract.'' Gordon Brown. 2007 Conference Speech

National Security.

''That's why we will appoint a Homeland Security Minister to co-ordinate our national response.''
Conservative Manifesto 2005.

''Tony Blair is hoping to implement swiftly plans set out yesterday to split the Home Office into a ministry for national security and a separate ministry for justice...' January 22 2007

Drugs

''We will stop sending mixed messages on drugs by reversing Labour's reclassification of cannabis as a less serious drug, changing it from Class 'C' back to Class 'B'...'We will break the link between drugs and crime by massively extending treatment programmes..'' Conservative Manifesto 2005.

Two years later....

''Laws making possession of cannabis a largely non-arrestable offence could be reversed, Gordon Brown has said...'' BBC News, July 18  2007

Gordon adopts Conservative Policy , but with one major anti-drugs initiative unfortunately lacking

''The flagship government scheme for treating drug addicts faces swingeing budget cuts of £50 million, it can be revealed today...The proposed cuts, phased over the next three years, would hit the "Pooled Treatment Budget" (PTB), the Government's main funding stream for drug treatment, which for this year is £398 million. '' Daily Telegraph, July 30th 2007

However less than two months later he u-turns and adopts the rest of the proposed Conservative policy

''To prevent addiction: we will extend drug education and expand drug treatment and we will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised.'' Gordon Brown. 2007 Conference Speech

Border Control

'First of all we will take proper control of our borders. We will ensure 24hr surveillance at our ports, and restore full embarkation controls...We believe the time has now come to establish a British Border Control Police, whose sole job will be to secure Britain's borders..'' Conservative Manifesto. 2005

David Cameron carried the issue through...

The Conservatives have appointed the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens to lead a working group on creating a border police force.' BBC News, February 26 2007

Not that this was welcomed by the Government....

''For Labour, immigration minister Liam Byrne said the plans "are posture politics backed up by fantasy finances".  BBC News, February 26 2007

But Cameron pressured Gordon Brown until...

'Asked about Tory calls for a border police force, Mr Brown said he was prepared to look at the proposals but ID cards had to be part of the solution.' BBC News, July 4 2007.

And...here it comes!

''The prime minister also set out to wrong-foot the Tories by proposing a unified border police force to combat terrorism.'' The Guardian, July 25 2007 

Immigration

''We will introduce a points-based system for work permits similar to the one used in Australia'' Conservative Manifesto. 2005

''And we will move forward with our new Australian-style points-based approach to immigration.'' Gordon Brown. 2007 Conference Speech.

[afleitch]

I have a feeling Dave you've missed the point I was making here

[afleitch]

FTR there was alot in the Tory minfesto (drafted by Cameron remember) that Labour under Blair/Brown have lifted but as I couldn't find supporting dates/quotes etc I left them out

The reaction to Brown's speech across the blogosphere pretty much summed up what I now believe; Labour members will support any policy if it's a Labour policy no matter how new, where it came from, how right wing or how many u-turns have been performed on it which is a great shame as these things go. The Labour Conference was shorn of policy debate this year as not to wreck Gordons big show. Even that show was pilfered from other speeched and has the finger prints of Shrum all over it (which while not important on it's own, it puts an end to the short term pretence that Gordon had somehow 'abolished spin') So no leadership contests, no policy debates at conference. If that's how the party want's to run itself then fine, just don't saddle the rest of us with it.

[afleitch]

FTR there was alot in the Tory minfesto (drafted by Cameron remember) that Labour under Blair/Brown have lifted but as I couldn't find supporting dates/quotes etc I left them out

I'm actually considering buying the next one just to see the extent to which I'd agree or disagree with it. Nothing can change what I am though. The 'Hawk' is not for turning, not full-circle anyways

Dave

Well not intentionally anyway If the party turns you turn with it rather than turn away from the party. Knowing your past (very recent past) comments about Mrs T and Norman if you'd seriously shake their hands in this new climate it pretty much proves my point

[afleitch]

Basically, if an election was held today, you would vote Labour if you want to vote Tory, vote Tory if you want to vote LibDem, and vote LibDem if you want to be spiteful

You're not far wrong I will vote Conservative because I am a classic liberal on personal freedom, civil liberties and an unobtrusive non surveillance state. Cameron has to stand up for 'Liberal England' because Menzies is to weak to do so.

[afleitch]

Al, I didn't mean it like that and I apologise if it came across that way.

It's very difficult, (being the only active UK based Tory supporter on the forum) to make a negative comment about what I can only call 'inertia' in the Labour grassroots movement as I well know there are several Labour members on here and I don't wish to offend anyone personally. I don't take digs at the Tory grassroots to heart as I know they're not personal and I hope others don't too.

Times are I guess, heated.

[afleitch]

All a bit hypocritical as far as Cameron goes since he seeks to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights. For me rights and liberties are pretty much indistinguishable.

Theres nothing wrong with the ECHR; it's the Human Rights Act, put in place to impliment it that is the problem (and thats what the Conservative wish to repeal). Labour was warned at the time that as a nation without a modern bill of rights or the equivalent and without a written constitution, we did not have the legal traditions or framework in place that would restrain the possible excesses of the ECHR. Other countries do, and the implementation of the ECHR (which I support) was never a problem. Here it is, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Human Rights Act (not the ECHR) to be abolished, a 'Bill of Rights' drawn up with the ECHR in mind and then the probable 'opt in' to the ECHR again down the line.

This is why such measures as wire-tapping, ID cards and a DNA database serve only to enhance our rights and liberties

As of today, government agencies have a right to seize logs of all landline and mobile calls made in the UK. If this was for 'security' reasons, then surely it should be made avaliable only to the security services and the Home Office? No, it's being made avaliable to everyone from the borough council, to the CSA to HM Revenue and Customs.

ID cards are an expensive experiment in pointlessness. The fact it will now be a crime to walk down the street without ID on you is the least of the many problems. The government says ID cards stop terrorism. At least they did until July 7th 2005, when if the bombers had ID cards terrorism wouldn't have been stopped. We'd simply have found the charred remains of their ID cards (unless, as any terrorist with half a brain cell knows, leave your ID behind if you dont want to get traced) which would have told us the same bloody information we already knew

That is unless they start checking ID as well as tickets on the trains in which case they would have been rumbled (but would still have blown themselves up, just right infront of the ticket inspector) or realised that while you might not want to carry ID with you, if you need it to get on the train you want to blow up, then you may as well bring it with you!

Then they said it was about cracking down on benefit fraud. That lasted all of one or two policy announcements before it was realised that most benefit fraud was caused by people claiming for things they shouldn't or for ilnesses they don't have rather than having a plethora of multiple identities.

All the government says about ID cards is that 'they are good.' For what, well they're still working that one out.

Furthermore, with rights and liberties comes responsibilities . Such felons as terrorists and violent criminals should forgoe their rights and liberties as far as I'm concerned

Yes they should forgoe some rights and liberties, but only if they are convicted. (Which, is difficult to square with your defense of the ECHR and HRA which has, in some cases rightly provided for more civil liberties in prisons and for felons) Alas for many people gathered up and thrown into jail during a terror sweep for what could soon be 56 or even 90 days without charge, why should their liberties and 800 years of legal tradition be thrown out? These people are not even terrorist 'suspects' as the reasons for the arrest and detention are not laid out to them.

[afleitch]

Slight change of focus here...

Never mind two years ago; how about policies from a week ago! The government now 'nicks' the Tories IHT policy after one week, except it doesn't quite implement it correctly Still the thought is there, and the whole 'marriage' thing.

[afleitch]

Had Labour raised the IHT threshold to £1m, definitely said ALL non-domiciles were to be taxed at a flat rate to fund it that would have been blatant clothes stealing. That hasn’t happened

Oh come on now Dave It's the same clothes, just shabbier and more exposed material

[afleitch]

Dave, the Labour Party could become anything it wants; you'd still back it! I agree with SeanT on PB on the direction Labour is heading, it's not there yet and may never be if it keeps following our lot around

The morning the government, rightly has taken a walloping in the press this morning and I'm looking forward to PMQ's today. It was a smokescreen (that didn't in fact 'screen' anything) the fact that growth would slow and borrowing soar by £22bn. Part of me is pleased the Conservatives are setting the agenda but, as usual can't quite get that right. Turns out couples can already transfer allowances; 500,000 do, and all Darling did was re-confirm what we already know.

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary. It's been in an ideological drift since about 2003, but more distinctively so since 2005 when the election, and with an unpopular PM, the party is dedicated to it's own survival in government. It's been drifting aimlessly since then and Gordon hasn't helped. He keeps talking about his 'vision' but we don't quite know what that vision is, because everytime he gives us a tidbit along comes a bad poll and where he stands changes. We've had the government over the course of the week mount a feeble attack on Conservative tax policy (and abusing the role of the civil service), followed by a partial implementation of five of those policies in the budget announcement.

This was the announcement that was brought forward for an election that was never called by a PM who stated he never wished to call it in the first place. Yet his own notes captured by the TV cameras show otherwise; that it was the polls that influenced him not to go to the country. And yet we are meant to believe that he is a 'conviction' politician.

This just cannot go on. Cameron's credibility has escalated only by comparison. Brown has now became quite predictable and the media have caught onto this. At the next European summit, it is almost certain that Brown will fake a confrontation over the EU Treaty to make him look 'tough' and try to negate the need for a referendum and I'm willing to be quoted on that.

[afleitch]

The problem is Labour isn't a 'Labour' party, it's not socialist, it's not social democratic and it's not christian democratic (not yet) it's reactionary.

For that I'm going to cease to take anything you say about political issues seriously. Have fun in your own little fantasyland though.

Al, that's bordering on the childish and I would have thought better of you. Instead of being dismissive if you disagree with me calling Labour a 'reactionary' party, a party that reacts to the opposition and events rather than setting it's own agenda, give reasons why they are not and i'll take them on board instead of just dismissing them off hand.

[afleitch]

I could understand the media being upset had Brown, definitely, said that there was going to be an election and then went back on that but he didn't

The media are angry at being fed a drip, drip, drip of information regarding the election from within the Labour Party and within the government, being briefed that policy announcements were being coincidently moved forward for the expected shutdown this week. What was expected, indeed what they were told turned out to be wrong. It only turned out to be wrong because Gordon called it off. If, as I've said before Brown didn't want to go to the country he should have shut that speculation down but he chose not to. It's poor judgement at the least and poor leadership at worst.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that had the weekend briefing on the marginals etc been productive Gordon would have called an election.

It doesn't help that Gordon said one thing but his notes, caught by the camera, said another with regards the polls. Only one of them can be right

The media feel like they've been taken for a ride and they need to vent off some steam.

[afleitch]

Al, that's bordering on the childish and I would have thought better of you. Instead of being dismissive if you disagree with me calling Labour a 'reactionary' party, a party that reacts to the opposition and events rather than setting it's own agenda, give reasons why they are not and i'll take them on board instead of just dismissing them off hand.

When I see the word "reactionary" used I assume that it has a capital R. As you don't seem to have used that version of the word, I take back what I said.

Oh I don't see them as anywhere near 'clerical' (even in Lanarkshire! ) Any party that went down that route would simply be expelled from public affections for a few generations. I suppose 'reactive' would have been a better word.

[afleitch]

Oh almost forgot - a married couples tax cut has also been 'pinched'

This is the same proposal as the one Gordon Brown went on the Today programme to condemn as ''disadvantaging widows and abandoned wives.''

There may still be a few Conservative tax proposals they haven't yet taken on board but i'll report on them in due course I'm sure

[afleitch]

Particularly when the govt isn't getting 'one up' but instead has fallen prey, as some polls have shown, to spin and copy cat tactics. It's just demonstrating that the Conservatives are setting the agenda. If you let the other side set the agenda (as the SNP did in Scotland) then you loose the long game.

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

[afleitch]

And as for the whole 'tax/stability' thing. You can have a stable economy with tax cuts and it's what our economy is crying out for. If you champion tax cuts to boost growth and continued investment in public services (but not the 'slavish' uncosted annual increases for headline purposes that has no bearing on service delivery), again as the SNP did, you get business on your side and hard facts on your side that eventually drown out the cries of 'doctors'n'nurses' from the other side.

There is a hunger for tax cuts; people aren't daft. They know that if they get an extra £200 a year in their pockets from the taxman, the NHS isn't going to collapse or schools crumble.

Wouldn't tax cuts and an increase in public public raise borrowing and force up interest rates?

Dave

I didn't say an 'increase' I said 'continued investment.' Personally I don't think public services need any more money. Spending needs to be capped inline with inflation until they can sort out their internal finances, gut the bureaucrats and  throw out the 'consultants.' Then after two or three years they can increase or decrease spending according to need. And thats the problem; this myth that public services need more money each and every year and we need to pay more and more in tax (or else we'll loose 'doctors'n'nurses') or else it will fall apart is a myth that needs to be exposed for what it is.

[afleitch]

Perhaps public spending need not have been accelerated to the extent that it has had the public services not been starved of cash beforehand

Dave

The problem today is the same problem as now; no one has a clue on how to spend the money. Spending on the NHS may have doubled under Labour (it doubled under the Tories too) The NHS in particular needs a full blown audit. As for bureaucrats, that should be up to individual hospitals and local trusts as opposed to centrally imposed consultants to the tune of £7bn a year.

[afleitch]

I didn't realise this thread was going to become a regular place for posting stolen ideas

Next up as announced in the Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2198584,00.html

Brown Pledges a Bill of Rights

As announced by David Cameron: June 26th 2007

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130578

[afleitch]

I didn't realise this thread was going to become a regular place for posting stolen ideas

Next up as announced in the Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2198584,00.html

Brown Pledges a Bill of Rights

As announced by David Cameron: June 26th 2007

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=130578

Will the government's proposed Bill of Rights be identical to that of Cameron, however ? From the article, seemingly not. Cameron will oppose the government's plans. I'd rather the government best anything the Conservatives have to offer

Indeed, this Bill of Rights would co-exist alongside the Human Rights Act. Very different from the Conservative idea

Dave

So you agree they stole the idea itself even if they plan a different execution? Brilliant I'm getting somewhere!

[afleitch]

So you agree they stole the idea itself even if they plan a different execution? Brilliant I'm getting somewhere!

Well, if they are plannning a different execution then it isn't the same is it ?

Dave

Of course it's not the same, It would be a little too obvious if what they adopted was exactly the same That isn't the point I've been making all along; everything they propose is a poor rehash of Tory policy (often policy they have recently opposed such as changes to IHT for example) and this is the latest example (there will be more soon if the grapevine is correct)

[afleitch]

I'm just watching this week's PMQs and I think the whole Speaker slap-down's been misinterpreted. The Speaker's not attacking Brown directly, he's telling off the whole House.

The Labour whips are not maintaining discipline within the party. Much of the Conservative brew-ha-ha was because Gordon accused Cameron of 'misleading the house' and then decided thats not really what he meant at all. I can accept that, but Gordon needs to learn how to perform during PMQ's. He really hasn't learned how to be PM. Some people glide into the job and others learn, but he's in danger of pissing off the mandarins who prepare a policy (like bin charges) and are hours away from releasing it before the plug is pulled and the 'Flunking Fist' performs yet another u-turn on policy.

[afleitch]

David Cameron. June 14th 2007.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=137126

Announced by Gordon Brown on November 6th

[afleitch]

Labour has, since 1997, rightfully, followed a progressive agenda on work-related policy and long may that endure. Forward not back

'That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. Next on BBC1...'