A Manifesto of Broken Promises

In the labour party on April 12, 2010 at 20:29

Trust us.  This blog isn’t an Iain Dale love-in.  We don’t even particularly like the guy.  He’s just far too self-important to read more than once a day.  But damn-it, if he ain’t right a lot.

Have a look over here at his latest analysis of Labour’s record on their 2005 manifesto.  It’s quite revealing:

23) p. 84: ‘We will put [the EU Constitution] to the British people in a referendum . . .’

Following the Netherlands’ rejection of the EU constitution and its subsequent collapse it was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty. Despite being ‘substantially equivalent’ to the original Constitution, Labour did not keep its referendum promise. Valery Giscard, former Minister of Economy and Finance in France, admitted Lisbon is the ‘same letter in a new envelope’, and that ‘all the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way.’

And, on defense:

24) p. 88: ‘. . . when [UK forces] are committed they will have the investment, strategy, training they need.’

• Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (head of the armed forces) identifies shortcomings of strategy: defence chiefs ‘simply didn’t have enough time’ to source everything they wanted and more time to prepare would have made a ‘significant difference’.
• Lt Gen Frederick Viggers criticises the lack of strategic direction: ‘It was rather like going to the theatre and seeing one sort of play and realising you were watching a tragedy as the curtains came back.’
• ‘We’ve got huge experience in this country – we’re not using it and we’re putting amateurs into really important positions and people are getting killed as a result of some of these decisions.’

• Sir Kevin Tebbit (former permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence) condemns defence expenditure cuts: claimed Gordon Brown ‘guillotined’ £1bn from defence spending in December 2003, while efforts to rebuild Iraq were ongoing, which created the need for ‘very major savings’.
• Major General Graham Binns identified a ‘major gap’ in attack helicopters, but that US equipment was in contrast ‘magnificent’.

There are just a couple of example, from Iain.  We urge you to read the rest of it, over on his blog.

%d bloggers like this: