Manifestos Rarely Win Elections

by Razi Rahman, Director, Public Affairs APCO London

It’s accepted wisdom amongst commentators that in the context of the electoral battle, party manifestos are unimportant.  It is true few voters study them.  But they remain important documents: setting out where the parties stand; framing the debate for the campaign; and the priorities should they win.  Civil Servants are already poring over their content, costing proposals and preparing briefings and options papers for implementation.

Manifestos rarely win elections. There have been occasions though, when they have crystallised concerns about one party or another.  The best example, the 1983 Labour manifesto, included far-left policies and was dubbed “the longest suicide note in history”.  More recently, in 2005, the lack of substance and detail in the Conservative manifesto convinced many the party was still in opposition mindset and unprepared for government.

The manifestos this year will be regarded as serious.  Much of the policy detail has already been announced. No policy emerged as totemic in the way the sale of Council housing did in the 1979 Conservative manifesto.  But perhaps these constrained manifestos are appropriate for constrained times.

What has started to emerge are themes. Labour’s offer focuses on government as enabler. The Conservatives focus on social action.  The content of both reminds us that British parties are themselves coalitions.  The Labour manifesto contains proposals on public service reform which allowed Lord Mandelson to describe it as “Blair-plus”, but also policies on the post office remaining in the public sector and a new regime for takeovers which will be welcomed by the trade unions.  The Conservative manifesto has a distinctly Cameronite flavour in both presentation and substance, putting issues such as tackling climate change and supporting the NHS at the fore, yet the party’s approach to the European Union remains distinctly Thatcherite.

The Liberal Democrats have tried to go with the grain of traditional British sentiment, putting an emphasis on “fairness”.  They have put some of their previous spending priorities, such as the immediate abolition of tuition fees, on the back burner reflecting the new economic situation.  Indeed they have made a virtue of being the only party to identify some of the spending cuts needed to reduce Britain’s structural deficit.

None of the parties address the scale or nature of the cuts required in coming years.  The language and rhetoric suggests painless efficiency savings rather than painful decisions will be the order of the day.  Today’s Financial Times argues all of the parties have a £30 billion black hole in their manifestos which will have to be plugged by tax rises or spending cuts.  In many ways this is unsurprising.  Campaign strategists will argue against taking risks now when it is far easier to leave them to an emergency budget or spending review.   Yet with three weeks of the campaign to go, will it be tenable for the party leaders to hold this line?  Or will tonight’s much anticipated debate be the start of a more candid conversation with the electorate?