Labour: Substance on Cuts?

If, like me, you are starting to tire with Labour’s repeated claim that they are the “party of substance over soundbite” in this election then you will probably appreciate this interview for exposing how shallow that claim really is when they are pressed on the detail.   I am sure those who have stained-rose-tinted specs will be unable to see anything other than the Good Lord adeptly handling an awkward question – however, for everyone with an open mind the following doesn’t need me to say anything else to expand on it….



Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “Labour: Substance on Cuts?

  1. Bewildered of York

    The Tories, shadow Treasury chief secretary Philip Hammond has attacked Gordon Brown’s “cynical decision” not to hold a spending review in order to hide the scale of the cuts that would be needed to tackle the country’s deficit.

    “Labour claim they want to talk about policy but refuse to publish the figures and refuse to debate the issues,” he said.

    “People will conclude that Gordon Brown doesn’t want anyone to know the truth about the consequences of his economic failures.”

    How can the other Parties be expected to be more precise with their plans to cut the deficit, when Labour refuse to engage the electorate or the media on this important matter?

    The opposition Parties have no option but to follow Labour’s lead, to do otherwise would be electoral suicide. In short Labour’s (Mandelson’s)
    duplicitous manouvering, tars all the parties with the same brush. Substance my eye!

  2. Tim

    All three main parties are ducking this (though Tory and Lib Dem parties can claim a small fig leaf in regard to not be allowed access to the full financial figures). But though Labour is slightly more guilty here any attack on them from a Tory perspective regarding being opaque and tight-lipped is bordering on the preposterous given the Cameron vow of silence that he took since assuming the leadership. In a glass house you need to desist from throwing stones.

  3. Tim, I can’t disagree that none of the parties come close to costing the savings needed suggested by the report (though as you note at least both Lib Dems and Cons have started naming things that would account for chunks of the money)- but the point of sharing this video is it has become the Labour mantra over the last week that they are the only people with ‘substance’ to everything they say. This shows up that lie.

    I actually have a nightmare scenario that even though we win, when we go the Treasury and open the books we find things are much worse than currently spun. Perhaps a mess of Greek proportions. We would then have to do the very painful necessary to rescue the country from outright bankruptcy and in doing so end up being rebranded for another generation as ‘the nasty party’.

    However, even worse than that would be a Labour win with this head-in-sand approach. I’ve every suspicion they would try and inflate the debt away at the cost of ruining every prudent person in the UK.

  4. Bewildered of York

    Tim’s assertion that “Labour is slightly more guilty” is disingenuous. Labour is the Party of Government, only they have access to the figures. If they had published a spending review, no party would been able to avoid fleshing out their detailed tax and cuts proposals for dealing with the deficit.
    As Philip Hammond for the Tories said, Labour took a deliberate “cynical decision” not to hold a spending review in order to hide the scale of the cuts that would be needed to tackle the country’s deficit. In effect, Labour have made it impossible for any meaningful debate to take place.
    This would lead me to agree with guythemac in the second paragraph of his posting, that the economy is almost certaianly in a much more parlous state than Brown is prepared to admit.

  5. Demon

    I am scared that when the Conservatives win the election and finally get access to the books, the situation is going to be far worse than it appears.

    I know Phillip Hammond, I selected him as my PPC in the 1994 elections when I was the chair of my local conservative association, he is an honest and decent man and worked extremely hard in our electorate area knowing full well in over 100years, labour always won… he won many voters over however and we had an increase of just over 3,000 votes.

  6. Honest Nick

    Phillip Hammond is a sound guy and a safe pair of hands, esoecially on TV. I’ve never seen him phased, or even ruffled for that matter, not even by Andrew Neil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s