Labour's unfunded spending commitments

Nicholas

Typical duplicity on the part of Labour. What do they do when pushed into a corner? Lash out at the Tories. That makes sense.

If this rotten, useless government had an iota of credibility they would be pursuing policies that would make Tory plans irrelevant if not invisible.

I have watched Yvette Cooper on Question Time and I marvel that such a person can hold that position and articulate such vacuous, dumbed-down rubbish. There, I suppose, she is at least consistent with the rest of the rotten crew.

Enough of you Labour! General Election NOW!

James

I just don't understand the logic of their actions. We are heading to a recession and they are heading out of power. If they screw it up further through ignorance/vindictiveness they will be out of power for a very very long time. The Tories can blame every unpopular measure on Labour.

It looks like Cooper is so loyal to the lame duck Prime Minister she is willing to sacrifice her entire career to help him in the short-term - even though he is beyond salvation.

The scorched earth policy will hinder Britain for a few years - but will destroy Labour.

TGF UKIP

The fulminations against Brown's reckless spending and borrowing are no longer confined to right wing websites and right wing hacks but are now common currency among the voters as the polls have consistently demonstrated.

Despite this, however, in any broadcast media interview whenever a Tory frontbencher starts getting stuck into Browns' chronic mismanagement, they are immediately floored by the simple but accurate riposte from Marr/Paxman/Humphrys etc "but you have undertaken to match Labour's spending."

When it has been perfectly obvious to so many people for some years past that Brown's spending and borrowing splurge was going to end in disaster, Dave and Boy George's spending commitment must rank as one of the most politically stupid ever, especially when they forego opportunity after opportunity to back out of such spending as the extent of the supporting borrowing becomes ever clearer.

But BTW, Fraser, don't bother with pointing out, as you did before departing for Sweden, that Osborne's spending pledge is only to 2010. With its implicit acceptance of current spending levels that was by far your lamest defence of your two boys to date.

Oh, and welcome back too, Fraser.

mart

The Conservatives should now stop saying "we will look at the conutry's books and give you our policies on tax and spend ... later".

They should start talking about the tax rises that will be needed to pay for today's public spending commitments. Labour spending commitments! They should warn us now, not later, if they will have to raise taxes.

This would be good politics, and vital public information.

mart

Following from TGF's post (with which I agree) I would make the argument now that the Conservatives have little to lose by dumping their "pledge" to keep spending high. Only those who agree with Brown would criticise a Tory policy to reduce tax and spend in a recession.

Seriously. In a recession - maintain high tax and spend. What reasonable commentator would argue for that?

Burton

This "scorched earth" / "digging in a hole" policy is very worrying. Things could get even worse.

I read today in the FT that Britain is having to hawk around for buyers of the Eurofighter jets, as having ordered them, we can't afford to buy them. Embarrassing, no?

Austin Barry

One of Yvette Cooper's hobbies is, apparently, portrait painting. It gave rise to thought that not only is Gordon Brown a reverse-midas, but perhaps also a reverse-Dorian Gray, his gloomy face corrupting visibly while in the attic a portrait by Yvette grows younger and Gordon becomes again the fresh-faced, tousle-haired Ganymede of his youth sporting on the beaches of Cape Cod while nautical fellows sail their catamites across Nantucket Sound.

David C

Mart:
People were stupid enough to believe Labour when it said it could spend more but tax the same -lies, of course.
Can you rely on people not to trust Labour and Brown if he announces another 'wizard wheeze' for getting a quart out of a pint pot?
Money vanishes from Brown's accounts - but even more debt disappears from the books, and it is human nature to believe things are not as bad as they seem (and couple this with economic 'illiteracy'...).

Burton:
RAF specified jets to a foreign buyer? Wonder how big a hit Brown is prepared to take?
Still, flog 'em to some third world despot and shift it to the 'aid' budget.

Tiberius

TGF: I don't accept your description of "lame" for the argument that Osborne's matched spending is only until 2010. More factual I should say.

As for the issue as a whole, it is a fact that Cooper and any other numpty to cares to say that the Tories are secretly planning swingeing tax cuts is made to look stupid when they are saying the opposite. So keep it coming.

If Osborne came over to your point of view, Labour would have a good opportunity to deluge the electorate with doubt over Tory economic policy. Politically the Tories are playing this correctly, as indeed they are with a neutralizing policy over the NHS.

Fraser Nelson

TGF, I plead veritas in defence. Osborne's pledge to copy Brown's spending plans until 2009/10 is meaningless as he wont be in office. From there, the trajectory must be shrinkage of state spending as a share of GDP. I believe GO will deliver. Of course by 2010 GDP growth will have been zilch for two years so he'll have a high ratio to claw back from. By then, everyone will feel the effect of Brown's profligacy and there will be public demand for substantial expenditure reform.

Nicholas

Scotland will need its own air force soon won't it. Perhaps Gordon could sell the jets to his chum Alex, maybe on a sort of lend lease arrangement?

Silent Hunter

One thing that IS clear from Yvette Coopers piece in the Guardian, are the lengths that the paper are going to avoid the 'Milliband Embarrassment' from happening again.

As the negative postings approached the 280+ mark in a matter of hours.....Comment is Free (a misnomer if ever there was) closed the thread for 12 hours.

When it re-opend the following morning, there was a sudden rash of 'new' Pro Labour posts appearing ........whilst those critical seemed to diminish markedly.

To achieve this; the Grauniad has started to 'pre-moderate' any members with 'shall we say' a track record of being critical about New Labour.......not surprisingly, try as we might (yes; I'm one of the pre-moderated band of brothers) we could not get a single word posted despite numerous attempts. (Now there's a surprise!)

Perhaps it speaks volumes that having attracted 250+ hostile posts in the first few hours of its publication; the Yvette thread currently only has 290 posts.

Either the readership have had a sudden 'Road to Damascus' moment and now see that Yvette is telling......'The Truth'
(unbelievable, I know);
or the Guardian are simply CENSORING any anti Labour posts.

I wonder which it could be? LOL

TGF UKIP

Fraser, thanks for your response via your other personna and aged alter ego, Tiberius.

What makes no sense is that while Dave and Boy George have been parroting this matched labour spending theme for two and three quarter years, for at least the last twelve months they have parted company with the majority of voters who believe Labour spending to be excessive. As the quintessential focus group politico it really is curious that Dave chooses to go against that flow, unless, of course, he is the social democrat I believe him to be and heartily approves of so much state spending.

However, to come to what seems to be your main point Tiberius - "Labour would have a good opportunity to deluge the electorate with doubt over Tory economic policy." Well, I'm sorry my dear old thing but many already seemed suffused with doubt over Tory economic policy and who can blame them when a) Tory economic policy is, as you acknowledge, to all appearances the same as Labour's and b) the principal spokesman on Tory economic policy is Boy George, a political Mike Tyson if ever there was one!

One thing I must confess to, though, Tiberius is how much I do enjoy your "musn't frighten the horses" posts for the images they conjure up in my mind.

Can you just imagine Ronald Reagan in 1979 saying to his acolytes "Now what we mustn't do fellas, is deluge the electorate with doubt over our foreign policy. So let's just stick with Mr Carter and see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil on the Soviets." Or what about the Lady talking to Norman Tebbit and Nick Ridley in 1978 "Now let's not deluge the electorate with doubt over our trade union policy. They too are one of the great estates of the realm so we must promise to consult with them and cherish them and we shall then be propelled to victory."

On a more serious note though, Tiberius, with his lightweight, conviction-free politics, it's a very dangerous game your boy is playing with your and your teenage alter ego's approval. Labour's sleazy incompetence has handed him a large national polling lead but there's two years to go and that lead is both soft and very, very patchy.

Given the scale of the disaster that has been this Labour Government where could the Conservative Party have been now with a Leader who believed in leading and believed in the conservative message?

TGF UKIP

Just to clarify, my post earlier this evening was to "Old" Fraser aka Tiberius at 3.32 as by the time I started writing "Teenage" Fraser's post at 3.58 had not surfaced. (What an irritating and frustrating this site sometimes is but I suppose The Speccie is an old time Tory institution.)

Anyway, to respond to The Fraser at 3.58, setting aside "the share of GDP" red herring, with your intimate knowledge of the figures could you spell out for us just what the real planned spending, that seems so acceptable to GO and yourself, is for 09/10 and how much this works out at per household.

Tiberius

I suppose, TGF, the polemics of the Tory economic policy argument could be something equivalent to "too many cooks spoil the broth" or "many hands make light work". Which is it?

But since you feel that the Tory lead is soft (24% in the latest poll), it would actually reinforce the wisdom of what you call the "don't frighten the horses" policy.

But it isn't that simple. What about the prospect of recovering (with almost two more years to go) from Brown's "scorched earth" economic policy, which seems to be gathering pace? Any radical change in policy would risk unquantifiable deficits, and so is not a wise route to take.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, I'm afraid the first and third paras of your latest post I find so obscure I really don't understand what you're getting at, even after several readings.

The softness of the Tory lead rather than reinforcing the wisdom of the "don't frighten the horses" policy (a phrase incidentally I rather think I picked up from illustrious self) demonstrates exactly the opposite. Dave's woolly, green, political correct "Broken Society" rhetoric allied to a Blue Labour tax and spend ecomomic stance may not "frighten the horses" but it sure don't give the voters any sort of positive, uplifting message to chew on and believe in. Where's da beef, man!

So far as "soft" is concerned look beneath the headline figures just in the last YouGov NOW poll alone. 20% headline lead - but look again and see in the already Tory stronghold and heartland of the South East outside London their lead is a massive 42% accounting for much of their headline lead. In London it's 11% and the North a distinctly manageable (for Gordon) 7%. Look again and see that nationally more voters consider themselves to be Labour people than Tory. Once again only in the SE outside London is this reversed in the Tory favour.

Dave's conviction free, look-at-me-I'm-nicer-than-Gordon posturing may indeed "not frighten the horses" but it sure reinforces the lightweight image and gives Labour everything to fight for.