Election: Leaflet Fact Check & Analysis: Emma Monkman
All the parties put out election leaflets, but how much in them is actually true when examined? We are checking the leaflets in the same order we have run all election coverage, alphabetically by party.
Here we look at the material for the Labour Candidate, Emma Monkman.
The Labour leaflet had format difficulties, so we are publishing it as click to enlarge.
“Mid Derbyshire has been taken for granted for too long.”
This refers to the fact that Mid Derbyshire is almost guaranteed to return a Conservative win, due to the historical record. Mid Derbyshire has only existed as a constituency since 2010, and has been a Conservative hold since that first General Election, with a single candidate – Pauline Latham.
There is a focus on representing the voice of the voters. Voters are unlikely to have a unified voice, but listening to the parts is an important focus. Emma is currently an Amber Valley Borough Councillor and the promise of listening to what people want is evidenced, as many local desires have been strongly represented in council.
There is no manipulative language, nor are there deceitful statements on this side of the leaflet. Admittedly there’s not a lot on it, but that’s not unusual.
NHS– it is asserted that the NHS is under attack and that private companies are making profit from running NHS services. It suggests that the NHS may be part of a trade with America under Boris Johnson’s leadership.
This is factual. There are now many hundred private contracts involved in the NHS, publicly recorded on the goernment’s website. The NHS has suffered crippling defunding under Conservative administration – this is evidenced and reported by the NHS itself. America, and specifically Donald Trump, have stated that they will only negotiate a trade deal with the UK if the NHS is available for purchase and exploitation within negotiations. The Conservative Party repeat that it is off the table, but evidence suggests the opposite. The statement made on the leaflet is not an exaggeration.
Climate Crisis – a promise to focus on the issue.
The statement of time and stakes is accurate. The choice is misrepresented. There are 4 choices. The choice is not only Conservative or Labour. Labour and the Green Party both have impressive ecological plans. Your vote is for one candidate, not majority governance.
Homelessness – these figures are inaccurate, but underestimated. Official figures suggest that homelessness has increased 165% since 2010. The figure for children without a home is over 130,000. The situation is worse than stated.
The promise is to ensure homes for all whilst protecting green belt and heritage.
There is evidence that the position Emma already holds on Amber Valley Borough Council is successfully delivering the promise to protect green belt and heritage, on a local level. Homes for all might be more difficult and has not been addressed at a local level.
Austerity – there is no doubt that Austerity has failed. There is no doubt that the national debt has increased, despite promises. It is not true that is has reached £2 trillion – this is a lie. The national debt stands at £1.82 trillion. Although the difference might not look like much, it is £180,000,000 difference.
Redistribution of wealth is included in the Labour manifesto. Not by confiscating and giving elsewhere, but by restructuring the way the system works. This is not new or revolutionary, but is divergent from the Conservative capitalist model.
Brexit – it cannot be denied by any faction that Brexit has not succeeded as an aim. The promise of a second referendum is popular and fair, because the original referendum was voted on with lies, foreign interference, and mass ignorance and misinformation about the EU (all facts with evidence to support them).
Beyond the leaflet, the key offered policies are:
A 4.3% increase in the health budget.
This isn’t as much as has been taken away from the budget. The reduction in the NHS budget stands at approximately 14.6% (Nailed calculation: reduction of £151b to £129b). This commitment is at the high end of what any experts have been calling for, as it will take time to restore damage done. Additional to this funding is the promise to cover prescription charges, basic dentristry, and hospital parking charges. Labour also promises to cut private provision of NHS services, which accounts for 7% of current NHS funding, which is nearly twice the dedicated increase, leaving 2.7% lower funding than before the election.
Labour promise to negotiate a new Brexit deal, and offer it, along with other options, including Remain, in a new referendum.
This begins on page 89 of the excessively long manifesto. However, they go into detail on the issue, where other parties do not.
Labour is trying to stand between the opinions. This can be percieved as non-committal. This can be percieved as appropriate to context, and respectful of divided public opinion. This is one of 2 biasless democratic choices (the other being Green) to allow the voters to decide, from a more informed position.
Labour promise to increase the national wage to £10.
This is the lowest promise for a national wage. But they promise it in 1 year. The Conservatives promise £10.50 in December 2026, the Greens promise £12, the Lib Dems promise to look at what is reasonable on the same model as the Green Party.
This costs the government nothing. No taxpayer money is spent on this. The cost lies with employers, who currently pay people too little to live on reasonably.
The Conservative Party intend to make people work until they are 70 before they can claim a pension. They have already taken away the pensions of women over 60. Labour promises to set pension age at 66, with those in arduous jobs being reviewed towards a lower age.
Nobody, except perhaps artists, and editors of newspapers in areas with no other trustworthy news, can envision working until they are 70. It is a stressful abuse to set retirement at 70. Most people are dead or incapable of continuing their profession by this age. The reasoning for this is that the Conservative government used the National Insurance pot, reserved for pensions, welfare, and the NHS on other expenditures (which did not benefit common people).
National Care Service
This is a plan to make Mental Health and Social Care (Elderly Care) equal with physical health.
This system already operates in Scotland and has been previously rejected by New Labour as too expensive. The success of this will depend upon support from the public.
Labour are aiming for a net-zero target of carbon emissions. Labour promises to reduce “a substantial majority of emissions” by 2030.
This is a weaker promise than the Green Party. The Labour commitment is earlier progress than the 2045 target of the Lib Dems but longer than the 2030 target for completion (as opposed to an unspecified majority) of the Greens and the 10 year 2029 target of the Conservatives. 2030 is in line with climate science.
Nationalisation of key industries
This is the most radical plan for how companies are run, amongst the manifestos. It would mark the biggest state takeover of utilities and services since World War Two. This extends beyond nationalisation of fuel and transport and will see non-nationalised companies come under government supervision too. The differences to private capitalist control of utilities and transport is a lower cost for provision and for the user, and the profit going to government finances instead of private pockets.
Despite saying that the party would scrap the benefit system responsible for mass homelessness and food bank use, the party have failed to offer a replacement. Critics state that reversal to the previous system (which has not been promised) would be costly. There is, however, no way to redress the suffering caused, without spending more than the damaging amount currently spent, which sees people with a terminal diagnosis forced to seek work under stringent measures.
Build 100,000 Council Homes Every Year
Labour’s promise to build 100,000 council homes and 50,000 housing association properties every year until the end of the five-year Parliament is a step back to the original Welfare State model.
Building on this scale has not been seen for over 40 years. 2013 saw a serious shift towards unsustainable private renting, especially for the under-35ss. This is a key policy, which includes a plan for a new Department for Housing.
The cost of the manifesto is less than the Conservative manifesto, which is largely composed of lies, and less than the Green manifesto, which has similar focuses and included some of these policies at an earlier date.
The Labour Manifesto is in plain English and does not use manipulative language.
It must be noted that beyond Emma’s official campaign, some Labour members have conducted a Facebook campaign which buried Emma’s voice beneath an undignified, cruel and personal campaign against Pauline Latham. Nailed has recieved negative reactions to that campaign. It should be noted that these are the actions of individuals in the party and not of Emma Monkman, who has behaved in an exemplary manner. There’s not much time left, but Nailed would suggest listening to the actual candidate, as opposed to voices who act without her authorisation.
Disclaimer: Nailed analyses facts. There are a number of statements in this analysis which could be viewed as partial, but are not. Facts include the impact of policy on people. Statements of the impact of policy on people, are evidenced to a high degree. These impacts are publicly available in official statistics, and expert impartial assessment. Nailed chooses not to deny the impact on people in unbiased analysis of party policy. None of these facts were obtained from any individual party, but underwent a 24 hour research assessment. These facts do not always look good on the current administration, and may undermine opposition policy. They are, however, facts. Nailed does not support any party or candidate. Nailed does not silence any party or candidate. Nailed will, however, deal in fact, not ideology.
Appreciate local analysis? Please subscribe to help us continue our work for you.
9 thoughts on “Election: Leaflet Fact Check & Analysis: Emma Monkman”
This is a very fair and balanced article… Thank you Clare.
It may be worth mentioning the National Deficit alongside National Debt as the two go hand in hand? If there’s one thing that government cuts have done, its to bring down the deficit successfully to 1.2% in the last figures, a 3rd year below 3%. Down each year since 2009/10 when it 2as 10%. A smaller deficit means overall debt is growing more slowly.
The latest ONS figures show national debt a little higher than you say at £1,821.3 billion.
You state that pensions have been taken away from women over 65. In fact the pension age for women born in the 1950s has gone up from 60 to 66. So 6 years was added to their pension age. Many women did not find out about this until it was too late. It should be remembered that whilst equality is to be desired in the present day work environment,in the 60s 70s and 80s women did not enjoy equality at work and many have been unable to build up a private pension. Workplaces simply did not offer pensions to women. There were very few options for childcare in those days. You had to take a lower paid part time job.
The Labour position is that some recompense might be made to ‘Waspi’ women, but no details have emerged.
This is a fact check of election material. The deficit is not mentioned in election material, and is not relevant to our checks. We are not making an argument. We are checking if parties lied.
Actually the figure has even more specific digits, but we all round the long ones down or up to a sensible length.
Its just a figure that gets my goat, both ways, quoting one without the other gives a different impression. Just talk about national debt? Looks bad, has got worse. Just talk about deficit? Looks good, going town, things are working! I don’t think any fact check on either figure is complete without mentioning the other, it doesn’t move the article towards a specific argument, but lays out the facts.
One party shouldn’t get away with just describing the Debt. Another party shouldn’t get away with just describing the Deficit.
I did get somewhat pedantic on the figure!
Hi Wendy. We say 60. This is a fact check and I’m afraid compensation was not part of the manifesto or election material. We have previously covered WASPI protest and would welcome any local WASPI women who would like to write about the issue.
Wendy Gough – there is most certainly very well publicised detail which has been covered on all media of what Labour means to do about Waspi women: ”Jeremy Corbyn confirmed that Labour would borrow to fund its £58bn scheme to compensate millions of women who lost out on state pension cash. He denounced the Coalition government for “stealing” their money and defended the party’s promise to pay up to £31,300 to so-called “Waspi women” (Women Against State Pension Inequality) as he set out plans to “restore dignity and support” for older people. ”One of the greatest injustices has been for the women born in the 1950s who had their increase in the pension age accelerated without proper notice. We will correct this injustice and return the money stolen from them.” From the i
You are right to insist on talking about both the deficit and the debt. But reducing the deficit has been achieved by a wrong headed Tory austerity, which ( apart from the devastating social costs) has suppressed economic growth and made it much more difficult to reduce the debt. Evidence shows that Labour Governments have consistently been better at reducing debt.
Well this is encouraging if Labour manages to do this. I had not seen any figures elsewhere. Something to think about!
GDPR, Your Data and Us: https://nailed.community/gdpr-your-data-and-us/