We might not read them, but manifestos matter

Not many people read election manifestos. Whisper it softly, but not even all the candidates read their own Party’s manifesto. After all election campaigns are rather frantic.

But that does not mean that manifestos don’t matter. That is because particular passages can attract very significant attention. At the last election the Conservatives social care proposals were dubbed the “dementia tax”. The dismay caused by the proposal prompted a u-turn – but that muddle and weakness caused further difficulty.

By contrast, Labour was given an easy ride – partly as the media considered them to have no chance of winning. Labour’s manifesto offered voters lots of free stuff – free childcare, free college tuition, more welfare money, more NHS spending and so on. New regulations would magically provide lower rents, lower prices and higher pay. Labour did provide some costings but these were not subjected to much scrutiny.

Nor was much attention given to Labour’s claims that their programme was costed. For instance, they proposed increased Corporation Tax. Yet there is considerable evidence that increasing the Corporation Tax rate would result in reduced Corporation Tax revenue. This time the media will pay Labour the compliment of taking them seriously – which will mean challenging them more rigorously.

This weekend Labour is holding a “Clause V meeting” to finalise their Manifesto for this election – last time round the process resulted in a draft being leaked to the media. It is due to be published next week. The Conservatives will be publishing their Manifesto later – hoping to have more impact overall by trickling out individual policy announcements beforehand.

In 1983 Labour’s election manifesto was full of extreme left-wing proposals. The Labour MP Gerald Kaufman memorably dubbed it “the longest suicide note in history.” The Party went down to a landslide defeat. Moderates in the Party had already given up on their prospects and so allowed Tony Benn and his supporters on what items to include – on the basis that they would then take the blame.

1997 saw a transformation with Labour winning a landslide victory. That put the key points from their manifesto on a pledge card. They were sufficiently significant to be worthwhile “retail offers” for doorstep canvassing. But modest enough to be credible – “we will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds”, “we will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing” and so on.

Apart from specific policies, a manifesto can also offer voters a broader sense of the direction a political party wishes to take the nation. The Conservative Manifesto in 1979 is a good example of that. There wasn’t that much detail. But nobody could  claim that Margaret Thatcher’s misled us over the approach she would take.

If a policy has been included in a Manifesto then it is easier to implement it – provided, of course, the Party managed to win the election. Civil servants, the House of Lords, backbenchers considering a rebellion can all be told that the Government has a “mandate” for the proposed change.

Not that a Manifesto is enough on its own. The Conservatives effort in 2005 was popular. The Tory leader Michael Howard summed it up in ten words: “More police, cleaner hospitals, lower taxes, school discipline, controlled immigration.” The message was that tax was high yet public services were still deficient. That resonated – but not enough for the Conservatives to win. Trust, core values, the merits of the respective leaders – these also mattered.

Some Conservatives will be tempted to be risk-averse and offer a worthy but bland Manifesto. They think the safe way to proceed would be with a document that it would be hard to disagree with but also difficult to get excited about. Promises to spend more money in various areas – but not as extravagant as Labour’s proposals. Some items on animal welfare and environmental improvements.

But blandness also carries risks. Voters may be cynical about whether promises can be believed. But that does not mean they prefer to be offered nothing. Politicians can’t rely on gratitude for past accomplishments – as Winston Churchill discovered at the 1945 election.

Boris Johnson’s message is that a Conservative majority will mean that Brexit will quickly be delivered and then he can proceed with all his other ambitious plans. That’s fine. But people will want to know what they are – beyond public spending increases which some may regard as imprudent. If Brexit will happen just over a month after the election then what will be the focus for the rest of the five year Parliament? Tangible measures to boost home ownership is an obvious priority.

By all means let Boris do some final checks with the policy wonks, statisticians and focus groups. Take care over the wording and the details. But we need to end up with a real manifesto. A programme that is bold, popular and distinctively Conservative. Then if Conservative candidates have some clear promises that they believe in i gives them the chance to get on with trying to convince the rest of us.