Labour's Empty Manifesto

One of the silliest devices in Doctor Who is the psychic paper. A blank sheet to us viewers, when the Doctor wants to pass as an official the card is flashed and anyone looking at it sees the appropriate accreditation. The reception of Labour's manifesto has had a similar effect on its audience. For some on the left it's distilled Toryism, whereas for the right it's a "bonkers left-wing agenda". For business it's a sensible roadmap to stability, and for the centre left it's "quietly radical" if not, as per Will Hutton, "potentially more enduringly transformative than Labour’s in 1945." Who says Roland Barthes's insights about the death of the author are PoMo garbage?

The truth is you can read into the manifesto what you want into it. If you are on the left and need convincing Keir Starmer's Labour are worth voting for, you'll find your justifications. For those particularly weird floating voters who read manifestos, they're not likely to find anything that would repel them. Those looking for reasons to criticise and go elsewhere will find plenty of ammunition here. But what is interesting about the manifesto is how insubstantial it is. At 136 pages, it's four times thicker than the Green Party's document (more on that anon), but is much less weighty. In fact, I can't recall ever reading such a thin document. There are probably more photos of Starmer than there are actual policies. This passage (p.86) from the small section on higher education typifies the tone.

The current higher education funding settlement does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, or students. Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK. We will work with universities to deliver for students and our economy.

What does that mean? Yes, something is wrong. But where's the solution, where's even the clue to the policy agenda we're going to get to secure Britain's universities?

This patter is repeated throughout. A problem is acknowledged, often rightly being put at the feet of the last 14 wasted Tory years, but instead of a proposal we get hand waving. It's this void that beckons the praise and invites the brickbats. For those of a wonkish mindset, there is a lot of "we're going to study this" and "we will review that". What this means in real speak is an expansion of the civil service and local government, with plenty of opportunities for administrative solutions to social problems and the inherited dysfunctions of the state. It also gives the (likely hundreds) of new Labour MPs a chance to make a name for themselves by spotting a need and championing a policy. It's a Fabian's fever dream. But in the sense of what is wrong, of the moral thread that underpins Labourism, there a few signs it has been stitched into the manifesto. It's a technocratic document through and through, one befitting the the mindset of its leader and his coterie of suits and briefcases.

There are some welcome policies. As noted before, Starmer's original commitment to trade unions has been watered down thanks to constant lobbying by Labour's fear weather business friends, and Peter Mandelson. But it says everything that even their implementation in this reduced state would make a difference to workplace rights and trade union activism. Though, do note, the Tories' anti-union legislation on strikes, cooling off periods, picketing, secondary action, and ballot thresholds remain untouched. Also positive but overlooked in the commentary on Labour's offering is the commitment to activate the Socio-Economic Duty, a little known bit of law that was slipped into the 2010 Equality Act in the dying days of New Labour and not repealed (nor enforced) by the Tories since. This compels public authorities to reduce socio-economic disadvantage as an inescapable part of exercising their functions. This has been variously adopted by the devolved governments and various Labour-run councils, but the nature of local government funding has stymied the effects of its implementation. This is incompatible with austerity, which is why the Tories ignored it.

For everything that can and would make a difference, just to remind us of the character of Labourism there is something appalling. More power to the police and intelligence services because terrorism (p.15), the notion of putting more coppers onto the streets because of a non-existent crime epidemic, the waffle about wanting a Palestinian state while idly standing by as tens of thousands have been butchered, and a fast track asylum removals service. There's the fluffy language about helping disabled people back into work, a policy that gave us the hated Work Capability Assessment 16 years ago, and the contradictory idiocy of affirming trans rights while backing the flawed Cass review. Milquetoast progressivism and performative authoritarianism, it's a Blair-era call back.

In fact, what this manifesto reminds me of is the 2010 document that Gordon Brown put forward. Having rediscovered the most limited Keynesianism during the 2008 crash, the 2024 manifesto reads as its direct heir with the last three airbrushed out of existence. Instead of plagiarising Wikipedia, Rachel Reeves's "securonomics" is a cut and paste of the late Alastair Darling. Except he was honest about the "need" to cut public spending, whereas you'll find no such candour from the front bench about how they plan to pay for their modernisation of the state.

That said, it would be unfair to say there is no difference between what Labour and the Tories are offering. Their document is "Sunakism" distilled. I.e. An exercise in offering nothing but culture war stunts to avoid the hard graft of dealing with the problems they're responsible for. Starmer's authoritarian modernisation, like Sunak's politics-as-avoidance, fights shy of raising people's expectations as a means of assuming control of the political narrative and avoiding stirring up popular enthusiasm for policies they'd rather not enact. This is what one of Starmer's favourite phrases - for a politics that "treads lightly on people's lives" - is all about. But even then, if Labour sees through its promises and gestures, this will result in better outcomes than the cruelty and spite the Tory manifesto wants to inflict.

But better is a matter of degree. Making life a bit more bearable is hardly the most stirring of slogans or most ambitious of visions. This is why there is no enthusiasm for Starmer's "Changed Labour", and why it will be increasingly difficult to hold its coalition of support together after the election.