tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/labour-manifesto-16061/articlesLabour manifesto – The Conversation2019-11-27T14:54:06Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1275482019-11-27T14:54:06Z2019-11-27T14:54:06ZUK Election 2019: Tory and Labour cultural policies leave arts organisations squeezed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303971/original/file-20191127-112512-18skz5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Both parties have placed museums at the heart of their cultural policies, renewing commitment to free entry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wutthikrai Busayaporn/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid a flurry of manifesto promises over the past week, the UK’s two main parties have both made various pledges to invest in arts and culture. Labour has promised to invest in a <a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/uk-election-manifesto-2019">£1 billion Cultural Capital Fund</a> to transform institutions in towns that have been “neglected for too long”. Meanwhile the Conservatives have pledged to fund an “<a href="https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/conservative-party-manifesto-arts-premium-secondary-schools/">arts premium</a>” in secondary schools and offer business rates relief for music venues and cinemas.</p>
<p>It’s fair to say that Labour’s promise has grabbed the headlines more than that of the Conservatives. Their so-called Charter for the Arts has also won the PR war, garnering the support of <a href="https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/11/culture-for-labour">hundreds of artists</a>, including celebrities such as Maxine Peake, Lily Allen and Ken Loach.</p>
<p>The Conservatives perceive the arts as “nice to have”, the peripheral tinsel on the tree of learning. This is despite growing evidence from the likes of the <a href="https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CLA-key-findings-2017.pdf">Cultural Learning Alliance</a> and the recent <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/creativitycommission/DurhamReport.pdf">Durham Commission</a> that effective arts education can foster creativity, innovation, empathy and resilience. It can also make children happier and healthier. Labour also backs a £160 million annual “arts pupil premium”, designed to fund arts education for every primary school child and ensure that arts and creativity are embedded in the curriculum. </p>
<p>It’s interesting to note that alongside schools, both main parties have placed local libraries and museums at the heart of their cultural policies. Before releasing their manifesto, the Conservatives had already announced a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-250-million-culture-investment-fund-launched">£250 million Culture Investment Fund</a> to support Coventry and the UK City of Culture programme, York’s National Railway Museum, the Cultural Development Fund, and upgrades to museums and libraries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arts-education-helps-school-students-learn-and-socialise-we-must-invest-in-it-122199">Arts education helps school students learn and socialise. We must invest in it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Renewed pledges to favourites</h2>
<p>Alongside its own Cultural Capital Fund, Labour is also committing to a UK City of Culture programme, championed recently by both <a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/labour-could-bring-tourist-tax-says-tom-watson">Tom Watson</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/dec/29/yvette-cooper-leads-call-for-town-of-culture-award-regeneration">Yvette Cooper</a>. Supporters of this policy cite the apparent successes of <a href="https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/01/02/news/derry-transformed-five-years-on-from-city-of-culture-1222901/">Derry/Londonderry</a> in 2013 and <a href="https://www.hull.ac.uk/work-with-us/more/media-centre/news/2018/city-of-culture-evaluation.aspx">Hull</a> in 2017 as UK Cities of Culture. Detractors, however, critique the flawed economic impact methods used to justify such investment and the potentially damaging nature of what could be considered a costly urban beauty contest.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303977/original/file-20191127-112499-1iaut4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coventry is set to be the UK City of Culture in 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Dorney/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In what appears to be an excellent week for the UK’s museums, both main parties have pledged to maintain support for free entry to national museums. This remains a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/weekly-poll/8938699/Should-Londons-free-museums-and-galleries-start-charging.html">controversial issue</a>, which divides both cultural practitioners and academics. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-hull-went-from-crap-town-to-city-of-culture-and-what-it-says-about-brexit-britain-86818">How Hull went from crap town to City of Culture – and what it says about Brexit Britain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is no solid evidence that free entry has shifted the demographics of museum and gallery audiences. There is, however, a compelling argument to introduce either a “<a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/303/case-study/trial-and-error">pay-what-you-decide</a>” system and/or an entry charge for international visitors. </p>
<p>Labour’s promise to redistribute National Lottery funding to more closely reflect ticket sales is much more likely to address the age-old problem of regressive taxation of the arts. It has justifiably won favour amongst supporters of <a href="https://64millionartists.com/our-work/cultural-democracy/#:%7E:targetText=The%20term%20Cultural%20Democracy%20describes,focus%20across%20arts%20and%20culture.">cultural democracy</a> – not least because it comes with a pledge for a more participatory approach to how Lottery awards should be spent.</p>
<p>Both parties’ ongoing commitment to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creative-sector-tax-reliefs">creative sector tax relief</a> introduced in 2016 by the former chancellor George Osborne is welcome. It has already boosted cultural production and offered a lifeline to the small and micro organisations that are often the real creative pioneers. But this will in no way compensate for the estimated <a href="https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/assessing-eu%E2%80%99s-contribution-arts-museums-creative-industries">£40 million per annum </a>in EU funding the arts and cultural sector is expected to lose after Brexit, compounded by the additional costs that will be incurred to overcome new restrictions on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jul/13/tristram-hunt-nicholas-serota-protect-free-movement-of-artists-after-brexit">free movement of artists</a>, both in and out of the UK. </p>
<h2>Flawed logic</h2>
<p>While many in the arts and cultural sector have welcomed Labour’s manifesto arts offerings, others have noted that the ambitious pledge to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/25/jeremy-corbyn-arts-pupil-premium-primary-schools-reverse-spending-cuts">increase the proportion of GDP</a> the government spends on arts from 0.3% to meet <a href="https://www.equity.org.uk/media/3370/equity_arts-policy-2019_final-web.pdf">the European average of 0.5%</a> in the last manifesto has disappeared.</p>
<p>Numerous reports demonstrate the <a href="https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/sites/default/files/2018-12/Creative%20Industries%20Federation%20-%20Growing%20the%20UK's%20Creative%20Industries.pdf">UK’s competitive and artistic edge</a> in the cultural and creative industries and their impressive growth rate – even in times of recession and austerity. Between 2010 and 2017, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossvalueaddedgva">GVA</a> (the gross value added) of the creative industries increased by <a href="https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/statistics">53.1%</a> and contributes around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/apr/17/arts-contribute-more-to-uk-economy-than-agriculture-report">£23bn to GDP</a>.</p>
<p>So regardless of political ideology, it would seem strategic to introduce a competitive level of mandated investment in <a href="https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/cultural-sector-continues-grow-faster-uk-economy">the country’s fastest-growing industry</a> and to guarantee its long-term sustainability. </p>
<p>Ultimately, Labour’s manifesto commitments are dazzling but flawed. While ambitious, they’re less generous than the promises made in 2017 and based on some unsound logic. However, they do represent a step in the right direction. They also demonstrate a continuing acknowledgement of the vital role that arts and culture play in citizens’ education and general wellbeing, alongside the positive impacts they can have on our towns and cities. </p>
<p>While it is heartening to see both major parties champion the cultural sector and its socioeconomic impacts, in comparison to Labour’s pledges, the Conservative manifesto offers little new investment and lots of spin. Considered in the context of a pending Brexit that will cost the sector millions, neither party’s pledges offer much hope to organisations that actually <em>produce</em> art. Unless the <a href="https://www.equity.org.uk/media/3370/equity_arts-policy-2019_final-web.pdf">swingeing cuts to local authorities</a> are reversed these organisations are likely to be squeezed quite hard from both ends. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300094/original/file-20191104-88372-xpdf2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKGE2019&utm_content=GEBannerA">Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As Director of the Centre for Cultural Value, Ben Walmsley receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Arts Council England and Paul Hamlyn Foundation. </span></em></p>While both parties are championing the arts and culture sector, after years of swingeing cuts these promises dazzle but offer little hope to struggling institutionsBen Walmsley, Professor of Cultural Engagement; Director of the Centre for Cultural Value, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786342017-06-07T09:50:08Z2017-06-07T09:50:08ZWhat each party manifesto means for student voters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172445/original/file-20170606-3710-hnbax4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For students voting in the 2017 General Election, there is much to consider – with fees and the future of higher education featuring strongly in the campaigns and manifestos. </p>
<p>Political parties are keen to attract <a href="http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Students-and-the-2015-general-election.pdf">student voters</a>. Not only can their votes make a <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/where-could-students-impact-2017-general-election">big difference in battleground seats</a>, but they are also the potential party members of the future. With a UK student population in excess of two million, there are also a lot of them out there.</p>
<p>So what do students in England need to know?</p>
<h2>Conservatives</h2>
<p>Higher education doesn’t have its own section in the Conservative <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">manifesto</a>, but there are many parts of the Tory agenda with consequences for universities, students and graduates. </p>
<p>A big consideration is how controls on immigration would restrict access to student visas. This is aligned to Theresa May’s intention to keep international student numbers down. <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/Universities-UK-response-to-Conservative-manifesto.aspx">Universities are anxious about this</a>, as fewer international students would mean a reduction in income, possibly resulting in course closures and job losses.</p>
<p>The party has <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/conservative-manifesto-pledge-cut-overseas-student-numbers">also stated</a> it would “launch a major review of funding across tertiary education as a whole”, indicating there may be changes to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-increase-in-university-fees-and-what-it-means-for-students-62985">existing fees and funding arrangements</a>.</p>
<p>A Conservative government would also make it a condition for universities charging the maximum level of tuition fees to be involved in <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-business-do-universities-have-in-academy-schools-50805">sponsoring</a> an academy or founding a free school.</p>
<p>It would also expand University Investment Funds, which provide finance to turn new discoveries into profitable companies or products – such as turning new drugs research into medicine. </p>
<p>This is to improve the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11625044/The-surprising-success-of-Britains-university-spin-outs.html">commercialisation</a> of university research, which is part of the party’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-uk-finally-getting-serious-about-industrial-strategy-71692">industrial strategy</a>. </p>
<p>The Conservatives would also fund schemes to get graduates to serve in schools, police forces, prisons, and social care and mental health organisations – so they can use “their talents to tackle entrenched social problems”, as detailed <a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/2017-conservative-manifesto-in-full/">in their manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>And they also plan to <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/05/nick-faith-to-deliver-world-class-vocational-education-may-must-take-on-the-higher-education-establishment.html">link existing universities</a> to new institutes of “technical education”. These would be <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/6263479/Conservative-party-conference-Tories-promise-technical-school-for-every-town.html">created in every town</a> to deliver <a href="https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/12732-degree-apprenticeships-and-the-new-pathway-into-higher-education">higher level apprenticeships</a>. </p>
<h2>Labour</h2>
<p>Labour’s <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/towards-a-national-education-service">manifesto</a> places university education in their proposed “<a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/160515197224/labour-launches-national-education-service">National Education Service</a>”. This is basically cradle-to-grave learning that is free at the point of use. Labour points out that university tuition is free in many <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-finland-and-norway-still-shun-university-tuition-fees-even-for-international-students-36922">northern European countries</a>, and that average debt for UK students on graduation is now £44,000.</p>
<p>Labour pledges to reintroduce maintenance grants and completely abolish tuition fees – their biggest spending commitment, <a href="https://epi.org.uk/report/election-2017-manifesto-analysis/?yutm_content=bufferc267e">costing £11.5-£13.5 billion</a>. </p>
<p>Jeremy Corbyn has also stated his ambition to <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/86362/jeremy-corbyn-labour-could-write">write off existing student debts</a>. Abolishing fees has clearly resonated with the electorate: a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/manifesto-destinies">poll by YouGov</a> shows it has been instrumental in tightening the race between Corbyn and May.</p>
<p>Labour’s policy is popular with those who believe higher education is a “<a href="http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/jeremy-corbyn-education-is-a-collective-good-its-time-for-a-national-education-service-labourlist/">collective good</a>” and a public service which should be free. It also means people <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40112033">may not be deterred</a> from going to university because they <a href="https://theconversation.com/poorer-students-arent-applying-to-university-because-of-fears-of-high-debts-78694">fear debt</a>.</p>
<p>The Labour Party manifesto claims: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw the steepest fall in university applications for 30 years. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But <a href="https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/applicants-uk-higher-education-down-5-uk-students-and-7-eu-students">data shows</a> that the number of people going to university, relative to the size of the 18-year-old cohort, is actually increasing – including applications from disadvantaged groups. </p>
<p>It has also been shown that the abolition of fees and the reintroduction of maintenance grants would in fact <a href="https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-higher-education-proposals-will-cost-8bn-per-year-although-increase-the-deficit-by-more-graduates-who-earn-most-in-future-would-benefit-most">benefit higher-earning graduates</a>. This is because under the new system, these graduates wouldn’t have to repay any money. </p>
<p>For this reason, the <a href="https://epi.org.uk/report/election-2017-manifesto-analysis/?yutm_content=bufferc267e">Education Policy Institute</a> says Labour’s plan is not an effective use of public money, as it will not help the mobility of underrepresented or disadvantaged students.</p>
<h2>Liberal Democrats</h2>
<p>At this election, the Liberal Democrats hope to regain some of the student vote. But their <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto">2017 manifesto</a> doesn’t try and win over students by promising to abolish fees. Instead, it promises to “establish a review of higher education finance in the next Parliament”. </p>
<p>This noncommittal position avoids a repeat of the politically costly pledge to abolish fees made in their 2010 manifesto, which they then abandoned when in <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ioep/clre/2015/00000013/00000002/art00007?crawler=true.">coalition government with the Conservatives</a> – although the party has committed to reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students. These were replaced with maintenance loans by the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172">Conservative government</a> last year. A move which has proved unpopular with many.</p>
<p>Tim Farron also wants to <a href="https://timfarron.co.uk/en/article/2017/1213339/farron-announces-nursing-bursaries-at-royal-college-of-nursing-speech">bring back student nurses’ bursaries</a> – which were <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nhs-faces-a-staffing-crisis-for-years-to-come-75426">recently axed</a> resulting in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/02/nursing-degree-applications-slump-after-nhs-bursaries-abolished">sharp fall</a> in nursing degree applications.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172450/original/file-20170606-3662-o2kwo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can students forgive the Lib Dems?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of particular importance to current and future graduates is the party’s pledge to stop the retrospective raising of rates on student loans. Student loan repayments are a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/student-money/student-loan-interest-rise-33pc-inflation-spikes/">growing issue</a> as millions of students and graduates are about to experience <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39577507">large increases in the interest rates</a> on their loans because of rising inflation.</p>
<h2>UKIP</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017">UKIP</a> pledges to restore maintenance grants. The party sees the abolition of tuition fees as a long-term goal for when economic conditions allow. </p>
<p>In the meantime, undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses would be free – provided graduates go on to work in these subject areas and pay tax in the UK for at least five years.</p>
<h2>Green Party</h2>
<p>Higher education doesn’t receive much attention in the <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee">Green manifesto</a>, but the party does pledge to “scrap university tuition fees”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Gunn receives funding from Worldwide Universities Network, the British Council (administering the Newton Fund), the UK Higher Education Academy, the United Kingdom Political Studies Association, the New Zealand Political Studies Association and the UK Quality Assurance Agency. Andrew Gunn concurrently holds visiting academic positions internationally. This article represents the author's personal views.</span></em></p>Who comes up trumps in tertiary education?Andrew Gunn, Researcher in Higher Education Policy, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/780582017-05-19T15:29:49Z2017-05-19T15:29:49ZThe hidden messages of a party manifesto: Election Weekly podcast<p>The 2017 election campaign stepped up a gear this week as Labour, <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-manifesto-the-pitch-of-a-brave-prime-minister-77993">the Conservatives</a> and the Liberal Democrats all published their election manifestos.</p>
<p>We saw the <a href="https://theconversation.com/lib-dem-manifesto-who-is-it-for-exactly-77131">Lib Dems</a> promising to legalise cannabis and hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal. </p>
<p>Labour made some generous offerings for everyone except the very richest among us. As we discussed in <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresas-bins-and-jeremys-leaks-election-weekly-podcast-77592">last week’s episode</a>, we already knew a lot about Jeremy Corbyn’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/be-it-bold-or-foolish-the-labour-manifesto-at-least-offers-voters-a-real-choice-77829">manifesto</a> because someone leaked it to the press in advance. But the final document confirmed such plans as raising income tax for the top 5% of earners to fund greater spending on the NHS, reversing a great many of the Conservative’s welfare reforms, and re-nationalising the railways. </p>
<p>The Conservatives were the last of the three to publish – and took rather a different approach. Their manifesto was more focused on the philosophy of the party under the leadership of Theresa May than about making promises to woo voters. We were told the country faces “giant” challenges and that the collective good must come before the individual to tackle those problems. That means richer pensioners will lose their fuel allowance and may have to contribute more to the costs of their care. </p>
<p>These documents are very important. They set out what each party is proposing to achieve if you vote it into government. This week, we’re delving into their pages to understand what’s on offer. </p>
<p>Andrew Scott Crines from the University of Liverpool and Ben Williams from the University of Salford talk to The Converesation’s politics editor Laura Hood about what we’ve learned about current <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-theresa-mays-conservatives-theyre-not-the-nasty-party-honest-78010">Conservative ideology</a>, whether Labour’s pledges are enough to save it from the jaws of defeat and what the point is of producing a manifesto if you, like the Liberal Democrats, openly admit you aren’t going to win. </p>
<p>We’re also looking at what the immediate implications are for the Conservative pledge to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which means that general elections are only held every five years. With that law out of the way, could we be heading for yet another vote before too long? </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Music in Election Weekly is Chasin’ It, by Jason Shaw. A big thank you to City University London’s Department of Journalism for letting us use their studios.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams is a member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), the Higher Education Academy and the Labour Party. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You need to know what each party is promising but who has the time to read through all their programmes for government? We did so you don't have to.Andrew S. Roe-Crines, British Politics Lecturer, University of LiverpoolBen Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/779702017-05-18T16:40:35Z2017-05-18T16:40:35ZLabour’s energy manifesto isn’t about nationalisation, so what does it really say?<p>Headlines claiming that the Labour manifesto means a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/exclusive-nationalising-power-plants-capping-wages-labours-leaked/">re-nationalisation of the energy sector</a> are wrong. So what does it really say, and what would it change?</p>
<p>First of all, forget the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39694183">tariff cap</a> on standard household energy bills. Both main parties are promising it, so that’s a zero sum game. Instead, let’s take <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017">Labour’s manifesto statements</a> in the direction that energy flows, from power plant to light switch. And that means starting with generation. </p>
<p>The manifesto makes a strong commitment to nuclear, but it is silent on the need for more gas power plants. These “flexible” gas plants will be essential to make sure the lights stay on when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing (coal is too dirty, and nuclear power <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261913007216">can’t easily be switched on and off</a>).</p>
<p>It’s important to realise there isn’t a single generating technology being built in the UK that is not getting some government subsidy, either in the form of “feed-in tariffs” for renewables, or the “capacity market” for traditional power plants.</p>
<p>Since the wind and solar generation boom, flexible plants run less often and make less money, so private companies don’t build enough new ones and are <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-uks-power-plant-graveyards-what-where-and-why">shutting old ones down</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169992/original/file-20170518-12231-1kxufs6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Europe’s largest gas-fired power station is found near Pembroke, in Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/16801915@N06/24507958109/in/photolist-D5MwR2-DkFG6T-hvGdCB-hvFRfX-BjzzYY-GCo3xu-Jvw34J-KDr4rX-NhKJAL">Reading Tom</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To counter this problem, the <a href="https://www.emrdeliverybody.com/cm/home.aspx">capacity market</a> was set up in 2014, and was designed to subsidise gas power plants. The then coalition government asked the market for the cheapest flexible capacity, believing it would be gas. However, the <a href="http://www.ippr.org/publications/incapacitated">answer from the market</a> was that “cheap” also included old coal plants and diesel generation which is about as dirty as electricity gets.</p>
<p>Labour’s manifesto doesn’t give any detail, but some state-owned gas plants might be the only way to solve this problem without even more subsidy. This is probably more ideologically palatable to a Labour government than it is to Liberals, Conservatives or even Greens.</p>
<h2>The grid will be publicly-owned</h2>
<p>Next the infrastructure, the wires and pipes that move electricity and gas around. Because these systems are <a href="http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/corporate-monopolies/benefits_natural.html">natural monopolies</a> run by private companies the government regulates these companies’ revenues. </p>
<p>Regulated infrastructure revenues do not exactly scream “innovation”, and because of this grid, companies have needed <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/electricity/distribution-networks/network-innovation/low-carbon-networks-fund">hundreds of millions in public subsidy</a> to invest in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514004716">smart grids</a>. This is why cities from Germany to the US are buying back these networks to accelerate investment. This is called <a href="https://theconversation.com/stumbling-serco-beware-there-are-alternatives-to-outsourcing-20322">re-municipalisation</a> because it is the cities, not states, which are buying the networks back. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169977/original/file-20170518-12221-y3mpn8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city, the local government is buying back its energy grid.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hko_s/8112010100/">Heiko S</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour’s manifesto says it will legislate to “permit publicly owned local companies to purchase the regional grid infrastructure, and to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time”. </p>
<p>To understand why this is Labour policy, it’s important to know that many of these networks are owned by companies like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/08/national-grid-stake-gas-macquarie-bank">Macquarie</a>, an Australian capital fund which has been <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3532903/Thames-Water-sale-Vampire-Kangaroo-investor-loaded-utility-firm-11-4bn-loans-dodge-tax-seeks-sell-stake.html">criticised</a> for its arguably ruthless <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/6/3/419/422251/Financialising-household-water-Thames-Water-MEIF">model of global infrastructure investing</a>. The same is true for the smaller distribution companies; for example, the company that services Yorkshire is <a href="http://www.northernpowergrid.com/about-us">ultimately owned by Warren Buffett</a>, the world’s second richest man.</p>
<p>Macquarie, Warren Buffett and similar interests own many UK infrastructure networks, and it is no surprise that this does not sit well with the current Labour leadership. Some point out that if energy sector regulation were to work as intended <a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/utilities/publications/assets/pwc-future-utility-business-models.pdf">ownership would not matter</a>, but others argue these companies are extracting what amounts to a <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/1731-private-island">privatised tax</a>.</p>
<p>Allowing cities and other public companies to buy back these grids costs money, but it also makes money. The choice for Labour would be whether they use those new revenues to fund social programmes, cut energy bills, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514004716">or reinvest to make grids smarter</a>.</p>
<h2>Public utilities will join the market</h2>
<p>Next the retail market, the place where we choose a supplier. Labour’s manifesto promises at least one publicly-owned energy company in every region of the UK. We already have some: <a href="https://robinhoodenergy.co.uk/">Robin Hood Energy</a> (Nottingham), <a href="https://bristol-energy.co.uk/">Bristol Energy</a> and <a href="https://www.whiteroseenergy.co.uk/">White Rose Energy</a> (Leeds) are all owned by the city councils. </p>
<p>I <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630060X">have argued</a> municipal energy suppliers are a good idea if you want to deliver smart, decentralised systems that tackle fuel poverty and promote local green energy. This is not nationalisation. In fact, setting up these new public utilities relies on them having a market to enter. </p>
<p>City utilities are among a group of new energy suppliers which are <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/chart/electricity-supply-market-shares-company-domestic-gb">signing customers up fast</a> by offering a meaningful choice on the mix of green vs traditional energy, new price deals, and for some, an opportunity to buy from a locally-owned company – public or otherwise. </p>
<h2>Investment in insulation</h2>
<p>At the demand, or “energy efficiency”, end of the market, the Labour manifesto promises to insulate 4m homes. This is an extremely welcome move as current policy is nonexistent and previous efforts were a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616301803">dismal failure</a>. Serious action is possible, is good for public health, and is a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015300169">huge economic opportunity</a>. Homeowners will be offered interest-free loans and measures for private rents are to be introduced. There isn’t any detail on how the 4m homes will be targeted but it reads as though households in fuel poverty will be first.</p>
<p>The Labour manifesto signifies the most substantial intervention in the market in 20 years. It is not a full nationalisation though. It is a series of interventions designed to tackle profiteering, and take an active stake in the system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Hall receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and is a member of the Labour Party. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>The party wants publicly-owned firms to join – not replace – the market.Stephen Hall, Research Fellow in energy economics and policy, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778292017-05-16T21:21:21Z2017-05-16T21:21:21ZBe it bold or foolish, the Labour manifesto at least offers voters a real choice<p>In formally launching the Labour Party’s <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017">2017 general election manifesto</a> in Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn has promised to deliver a “programme of hope” to achieve a “better, fairer Britain” by aspiring to benefit the “many not the few”.</p>
<p>For years, significant numbers of British voters have complained that all parties appear to be the same. Some have argued that this may explain the historically low <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8500971.stm">election turnouts</a> of recent times. But with Labour’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39934039">explicit advocacy</a> of more public spending, more tax and more borrowing to “rebalance” the economy, it’s now clearly the case that the two main parties are not the same.</p>
<p>Perhaps as expected, some of the pro-Conservative media was quick to report the manifesto’s potential implications in a typically alarmist manner. There were allusions to a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4510280/Labour-launches-left-wing-manifesto-huge-tax-assault.html">“huge tax assault”</a> that seemed designed to frighten aspirational Middle England voters.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, by pledging to raise an additional <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-election-labour-idUSKCN18C1BK">£48.6 billion</a> in tax revenue to fund its bold pledges, Corbyn’s Labour is offering a programme that it claims is both “radical and responsible”.</p>
<h2>Key points</h2>
<p>There are Labour moderates who never envisaged that the party would take such a path again, but many of the promises in this manifesto do hark back to a different political era. </p>
<p>Increasing income tax to 45 pence in the pound for those earning more than £80,000 and 50 pence for those earning in excess of £123,000 per year, is a particularly striking example. Labour claims it can generate <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39930865">£6.4 billion</a> from these increases and that 95% of the population will be unaffected.</p>
<p>Then there are promises to renationalise key industries – including the Royal Mail, the railways and water – alongside a pledge not to raise VAT or national insurance, and another to introduce a “living wage” of £10 an hour. The latter is estimated to be able to boost the incomes of 5.7m low earners.</p>
<p>There’s also a proposal to charge a levy on companies that pay employees more than £330,000 per year. Some have described it as a <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-manifesto-proposes-fat-cat-tax-renationalising-water-companies-1621746">“fat cat tax”</a>. </p>
<p>The manifesto also pledges to establish a so-called additional “Robin Hood” tax on financial transitions costing £5.6 billion, and an increase in corporation tax from the current 19% to 26% by 2022. Labour has claimed that a further £6.5 billion can be raised for its public spending plans by more aggressive tax avoidance measures being implemented.</p>
<p>In terms of broader social policies, university tuition fees would be scrapped under Labour, at a cost of over £11 billion, Conservative welfare reforms – such as the bedroom tax – would be reversed. That, and additional funds to bolster universal credit and housing benefit would cost an estimated £4 billion. Labour also wants to build <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-manifesto-2017-jeremy-corbyn-flies-the-red-flag-with-48bn-raid-on-betteroff-a3540281.html">a million new homes</a>, at least half of which will be social housing for people on lower incomes.</p>
<h2>A new direction</h2>
<p>As indicated when some elements of the manifesto were <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-labour-manifesto-full-blooded-10398536%5D">leaked</a> ahead of its publication, Labour’s aggressive tax and spend represents a radical new direction away from its broad electoral strategy since the 1980s. The full manifesto seems to be even bolder than the leaked version suggested. It essentially focuses on asking the better off and large companies to pay more tax to fund improved public services. Whether this stifles the electoral support of aspirational and vital middle-class voters towards the Labour message remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Labour’s manifesto is a rejection of post-2010 austerity and has a full-blown socialist narrative behind it. It embraces the idea that voters demand something different in order to be able to distinguish the main parties from one another. It also appears to stubbornly defy the New Labour <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/tony-blair-labour-return-centre-ground-general-election-defeat">mantra</a> that you must appeal to the centre ground of politics and that you can’t win elections from a left-wing, tax-raising position – even if that’s a theory that seems to have been upheld by recent <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/">opinion polls</a>.</p>
<p>What the 2017 Labour manifesto ultimately illustrates therefore is a clear break with the years of political consensus that broadly covered the <a href="https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/britain-in-the-20th-century-a-new-consensus-1990-2001">1979 to 2010</a> governments of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron.</p>
<p>There were some notable political and ideological differences between Cameron and Ed Miliband in 2015, but this time Labour is striking out in an entirely different way. Whether the decision turns out to be bold or simply foolish remains to be seen on June 8, but it is at least giving voters a genuine choice between two absolute alternatives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Williams is a member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), the Higher Education Academy and the Labour Party. </span></em></p>The party has produced an unexpectedly detailed plan for government, marking a radical break from the past.Ben Williams, Tutor in Politics and Political Theory, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775922017-05-11T16:07:37Z2017-05-11T16:07:37ZTheresa’s bins and Jeremy’s leaks: Election Weekly podcast<p>A month ahead of polling day, the Labour party is scrambling to manage its message after someone <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439">leaked a draft version</a> of its 2017 election manifesto, the day before a final version was to be agreed by the party’s leadership. </p>
<p>The draft includes pledges to scrap tuition fees and nationalise part of the energy market. The party also looks to be avoiding taking a hard line on immigration, despite pressure from some of its supporters, and it doesn’t want to leave the European Union without a Brexit deal.</p>
<p>In the second episode of the Election Weekly podcast guests Paula Keaveney from Edge Hill University and Stuart McAnulla from the University of Leeds join The Conversation UK’s politics editor Laura Hood to size up the promises and predict which are likely to make it into the final version of the manifesto – as well as pondering who might be behind the leak.</p>
<p>Before Labour stole the headlines, the main story of the week seemed a little silly. Here was prime minister Theresa May <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08pl018/the-one-show-09052017">sitting on a BBC sofa</a> with her husband, talking about household chores (and the fact that there are <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-philip-may-husband-boy-jobs-girls-one-show-take-bins-out-bbc-prime-minister-marriage-a7727481.html">“boy and girl jobs”</a> in the May household). We learned who takes out the bins and that Mr May likes a nice jacket. But for all its mundanity, this appearance on the One Show was revealing about who the prime minister wants you to think she is – and what she believes.</p>
<p>Find out more about why manifestos matter by reading <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-beginners-guide-to-election-manifestos-and-why-they-really-matter-77576">our brief history</a> of these all important documents.</p>
<p>And while it looks like the Conservatives are still on course for a major victory in this election, we’ve been hearing <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-landslide-victory-might-actually-be-a-bad-thing-for-theresa-may-77430">about why</a> a very large majority in the House of Commons isn’t always a gift to a government.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Election Weekly is a podcast series from The Conversation UK running once a week in the run-up to the UK general election on June 8. Music in the show is <a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Jason_Shaw/Audionautix_Acoustic/CHASIN_IT_________________________1-14">Chasin’ It</a>, by Jason Shaw. A big thank you to City University London’s Department of Journalism for letting us use their studios.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77592/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart McAnulla does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Expert analysis of the leaked Labour party manifesto and how the parties are trying to manage their media messaging.Stuart McAnulla, Associate Professor in Politics, University of LeedsPaula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775762017-05-11T15:19:38Z2017-05-11T15:19:38ZA beginner’s guide to election manifestos – and why they really matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168960/original/file-20170511-32624-aotofi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You probably won't read them, but these documents can make or break a party. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The launch of a party’s manifesto is among the most decisive moments in a British general election campaign. Manifestos are not merely devices to harvest votes at election time. They establish the agenda for government that the party will pursue in office.</p>
<p>Manifestos have a quasi-constitutional authority in the British political system. If a party has secured a parliamentary majority in the House of Commons on the basis of its manifesto, the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/salisbury-doctrine/">Salisbury Convention</a> states that the government’s programme cannot be vetoed by a recalcitrant House of Lords.</p>
<p>Political parties approach manifesto writing very differently. The Labour party has a process that ensures all of the key elements on the National Executive Committee (NEC) have influence. So the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), the trade unions, constituency Labour parties and affiliated societies all take part in drawing the document up. <a href="http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf">Clause five</a> of Labour’s constitution requires the manifesto to be formally agreed by the party’s stakeholders at a special meeting of the NEC.</p>
<p>This rule was designed in the 1970s and 1980s to address the difficulties encountered by Harold Wilson’s governments in their relations with the party. At the time there was a suspicion on the left that the leadership would betray the party’s grassroots by refusing to implement the radical measures contained in the Labour manifesto. </p>
<p>The Conservatives have traditionally been more pragmatic and flexible, giving control of their manifesto almost entirely to the leader and the central party organisation.</p>
<h2>What’s the point of a manifesto?</h2>
<p>Manifestos have had distinct purposes at various historical moments in British political history. Labour’s <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm">1945</a> and <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab79.htm">1979</a> manifestos were relatively short and pithy documents. They set out at a broad vision of society that was a decisive break from what had gone before. In contrast, Tony Blair’s manifesto in <a href="http://labourmanifesto.com/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml">2001</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_04_05_labour_manifesto.pdf">2005</a> spelled out his approach to public service reform across health, education and criminal justice, providing a mass of technocratic detail. Similarly, in 2010 David Cameron set out his comprehensive plan for the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617433.stm">Big Society</a>.</p>
<p>Manifestos also matter because they can create damaging hostages to fortune. Labour’s manifesto in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-32287585/bbc-rewind-1983-labour-manifesto">1983</a> was described as “the longest suicide note in history” because it featured electorally unpopular commitments to public ownership, state planning and unilateral nuclear disarmament.</p>
<p>The Conservatives’ 1987 manifesto proposed reforming the domestic rates system and a “community charge”, subsequently known as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980361/Margaret-Thatcher-Refusal-to-back-down-on-poll-tax-that-cost-the-leader-dear.html">Poll Tax</a>. The unpopularity of the Poll Tax led to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher in 1990.</p>
<p>In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats famously made a <a href="http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf">commitment</a> to scrap university tuition fees – a pledge that was dropped once the party entered a coalition government with the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats were accused of egregious political betrayal and suffered dreadful losses in the next election as a result. </p>
<h2>Reading between the lines</h2>
<p>In the 2017 election, the Conservative manifesto will be more heavily scrutinised than the Labour or Liberal Democrat manifestos, since the Conservatives are expected to win a parliamentary majority on the basis of the published polls. But, at the same time, the confidence with which the governing party has entered this race means it may not feel the need to make costly pre-election commitments in its manifesto. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439">leak</a> of Labour’s draft manifesto indicates the party is still plagued by internal divisions as to its long-term direction. </p>
<p>What is less clear about party manifestos is how far they actually assist the democratic process. Very few people will read the manifesto of the party they are voting for. Most people depend on soundbite summaries that appear in the mass media.</p>
<p>Manifestos are unlikely to disappear from party’s campaigns, but there should be more independent scrutiny of manifestos: arm’s-length bodies that are formally independent of government such as the Office for Budgetary Responsibility or the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be tasked with producing detailed costings and assessments of each party’s manifesto to assist public debate. That might help voters digest the information they need before voting and help them make informed choices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77576/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is affiliated with Policy Network and is a member of the Labour party. </span></em></p>Here’s why you should bother paying attention to the documents published by your party this election.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/434862015-06-18T12:48:41Z2015-06-18T12:48:41ZFlat debate fails to ignite Labour’s leadership campaign<p>The last-minute inclusion of Jeremy Corbyn as a contender to the leadership of the Labour Party was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catchup-what-is-the-point-of-jeremy-corbyn-running-for-labour-leader-10322415.html">received with derision</a> by mainstream media and party figures. The worry was that his reluctant participation in the leadership election would send the wrong message to voters. But <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11682380/Labour-leadership-hustings-Jeremy-Corbyn-wows-audience-with-Left-wing-agenda.html">yesterday’s party hustings</a> in Nuneaton showed that these fears were misplaced. </p>
<p>If anything, Corbyn’s participation in the debate showed that clarity and conviction still count for something in British politics. Of the four contenders to Labour’s top job, Corbyn was the most applauded by the audience of undecided and clearly nonplussed Nuneaton voters. He also widened the scope of the party’s otherwise flat and superficial debate about the future of Labour Party politics by claiming that there are other ways of thinking about the deficit, welfare reform or immigration.</p>
<p>By contrast, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall – the three “real” contenders of Labour’s leadership election – struggled to find points of disagreement between themselves, and none of them explained with clarity their analysis of the causes of Labour’s catastrophic defeat. </p>
<p>Their opening statements were similarly bland and poor in terms of content. In fact, they seemed to have been written by the same copy-editor. Each placed emphasis on different policy issues and promised “more of this” and “less of that”, but they (surprisingly) deviated very little from Milibandism, or from each other. On immigration, the deficit and welfare they differed little from Ed Miliband’s script. They even repeated his convoluted messages.</p>
<h2>A fresh start?</h2>
<p>The format of the debate did not help. As each intervention was timed, there was never any real chance to discuss ideas and policy in some detail and so the three preferred to repeat their rehearsed slogans leaving the audience none the wiser about their promises of change. For instance, Liz Kendall kept promising a “fresh start” but she never explained what it amounted to, apart from some hardline stances on immigration, on welfare and on the deficit. </p>
<p>But even on welfare, she did not move that far away from Milibandism. Indeed, Miliband liked to say that Labour was the “party of work” and Kendall’s proposals to introduce the contributory principle in the welfare system were part of <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf">Labour’s 2015 manifesto</a>.</p>
<p>She managed to sound different from Cooper and Burnham by vaguely supporting the idea of a budgetary surplus, but she would be wise to consider carefully the endorsement of a policy stance that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2015/june/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal">most economists consider</a> to be economically illiterate. She also scored some points by presenting herself as the candidate who will “put the country first” but her ill-disguised attempts to look like Labour’s Iron Lady may not win her many friends within the party.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/85531/original/image-20150618-23223-1iotn3q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A flat audience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-33152341">BBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Andy Burnham, who so far has been <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-leadership-who-is-andy-burnham-10238180.html">seen as the favourite</a> to lead the Labour Party, scored few brownie points. He insisted on the need to move from the Westminster bubble, but at times he spoke like a paid-up member of the professional political class. It is true that Jeremy Corbyn’s participation in the leadership contest is not helping his cause. Corbyn’s passionate defence of public services and of a higher minimum wage stole some of Burnham’s radical colours. In comparison with the Islington North MP, Burnham almost sounded like a centrist. Worse, a centrist with a tendency for verbosity.</p>
<h2>Cooper most confident</h2>
<p>Yvette Cooper was not much better. She presented herself as a reassuring and experienced pair of hands who will take the party in a sensible (but not necessarily inspiring) direction, but offered no specifics about her distinctive ideas. This being said, her relaxed demeanour and her willingness to be more revealing about what she really thinks about issues (namely on welfare) helped her to come across as the most confident of the four contenders.</p>
<p>Despite Cooper’s attempts to inject some enthusiasm into the debate, the studio audience in Nuneaton did not seem too impressed with what they saw and heard. It all seemed so flat. But maybe the candidates will be forgiven for this. The party’s electoral defeat was not so long ago, and it still needs to be digested and fully understood. </p>
<p>The format of the televised debates is quite challenging, as the leadership contenders have to pitch both to the party and to a fragmented electorate. For these reasons, yesterday’s Nuneaton party hustings should be seen as a warm-up exercise to the real – and hopefully more passionate and content-rich – debate that will take place over the next three months.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43486/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Our politics correspondent explains why the Nuneaton hustings was just a warm-up act to the main event.Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Politics, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401452015-05-06T17:22:03Z2015-05-06T17:22:03ZManifesto Check: Labour crime policies offer few surprises<p>The general election of 1979 drastically changed the place of crime in politics. Thatcher’s promise to be tough on crime is arguably what won that election for the Conservatives. This set a precedent, wherein being seen as soft on crime became politically unappealing. The Labour party eventually responded to this agenda, and <a href="http://crj.sagepub.com/content/1/3/301.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc">Blair’s promise</a> to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” became the rallying cry of the New Labour movement. </p>
<h2>Community-based policy</h2>
<p>The crime section of the new <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf">Labour manifesto</a> opens by acknowledging crime as a cause of fear and insecurity. People certainly fear violent crime, but the statistics suggest that it is very much on the decrease, and has been since the mid-1990s. </p>
<p>Much of this has taken place during the New Labour years, and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2013-to-2014-csew/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-201314-crime-survey-for-england-and-wales">Crime Survey for England and Wales</a> shows that reported violent crime between 1995 and 2014 has fallen from 3.8 million in 1995 to 1.3 million in 2013/14. Over the past five years, reported violent crimes have dropped by 21%, with public disorder offences fallen by 29%. Over the same period, crimes involving weapons have decreased by 34%, and homicides by 28%. </p>
<p>But crime statistics are <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-violent-crime-gone-up-40915">notoriously inaccurate</a>, particularly during times of huge public sector cutbacks when there aren’t the personnel to discover – let alone detect – crime. Crime surveys, on the other hand, are far more accurate, and these do suggest that violent crime is in decline. Nevertheless, there is some discrepancy with the numbers appearing in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11358596/Rise-in-AandE-attendances-is-ten-times-that-under-last-Government.html">A&E departments</a>. </p>
<p>There have been huge cuts in the number of fully fledged front-line police officers during the coalition years with more predicted. But this fails to take into account the large numbers of much cheaper Police Community Support Officers (PCSOS), which were originally introduced by New Labour. </p>
<p>Now, Labour pledges to safeguard more than 10,000 police officers for the next three years, and also to guarantee “neighbourhood policing in every community”. The public does like to see uniformed officers on our streets, but this manifesto is not at all clear whether the intention is to employ proper police officers, or support workers.</p>
<h2>Addressing domestic abuse</h2>
<p>Some argue that many offences, such as domestic abuse continue not to be reported or even recognised as a crime by some of the victims. In light of this, and <a href="http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220036sionTitle=statistics">the fact that</a> two women each week are estimated to be killed by a current or former partner, it makes sense to address domestic violence against women and girls. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/domestic-violence-refuge-crisis-women-closure-safe-houses">Women’s refuges and Rape Crisis Centres</a> do sterling work, but their sources of funding have been very fragile during the coalition years. Sexual abuse is a similar area of contention, and certainly the recent “discovery” of <a href="https://theconversation.com/complicity-and-conspiracy-in-rotherham-should-teach-us-how-to-handle-future-cases-30979">widespread grooming gangs</a> is a long-established issue previously not acknowledged. Labour clearly plan a major extension of intervention in such cases.</p>
<h2>Policing policies</h2>
<p>There is a general theme throughout the manifesto of a return to community-based methods, such as strengthened community safety partnerships, and giving local people a role in setting priorities for neighbourhood policing. </p>
<p>In its manifesto, the Labour party intend to abolish directly elected (and expensive) Police and Crime Commissioners, all of which were returned by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20352539">very small numbers of electors</a>. It is unlikely that many people will miss their passing, although there is no suggestion as to how they will be replaced. </p>
<p>The manifesto also promises a new Police Standards Authority, to replace the Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, it is not known who exactly will constitute this Police Standards Authority – this will be a crucial determinant of its efficacy. </p>
<p>The imbalance in the ethnic composition of the police force is another issue the Labour manifesto addresses. Whether it is simply racism that stops ethnic minorities from joining the police or a more complex phenomenon, is unknown. But there have been plenty of initiatives to address this imbalance and no serious political party has been opposed to these policies. </p>
<h2>Tough</h2>
<p>Crime prevention is one of the many issues mentioned in passing, but the suggested initiatives have very little to do with preventing crime. There is a focus on restorative justice for perpetrators of anti-social behaviour; but the question of who is going to administer this is not approached. </p>
<p>It is clearly important to protect workers from violence in the workplace, but tougher penalties, as Labour proposes, might not work. There is little detail on many of Labour’s policies as to how, or by whom, these strategies should be implemented. None of this seems to have been costed and the implication would seem to be a growth in staff, which will inevitably be expensive.</p>
<p>The establishment of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales completely revitalised juvenile/youth justice initially at great expense although its budget was significantly reduced over the duration of three governments. Originally planning its abolition, the Coalition Government further reduced its budget and moved it into the Ministry of Justice. </p>
<p>There is a recognition in the Labour manifesto that <a href="http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/oldenoughtoknowbetter.pdf">Youth Offending Teams</a> do an excellent job and the decision to increase its jurisdiction to deal with 18 to 20-year-olds. It is supported by <a href="https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/What_is_Justice/HLWP_16_2015.pdf">widespread evidence</a> that this age group is more juvenile than adult. And this would be cost-neutral due to the subsequent savings in the adult criminal justice system. </p>
<h2>Drug related crime</h2>
<p>Drug addiction continues to be a <a href="http://www.routledge.com/articles/an_introduction_to_criminological_theory/">major cause of street crime</a>, although it’s not certain why this proposed extension of joined-up services will greatly help. Treatment is undoubtedly the way forward and should be encouraged. The Liberal Democrats go a step further, by <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanda-could-portugals-drug-reforms-work-in-the-uk-38181">suggesting decriminalisation</a>. Yet in the context of the current agenda, improved agency cooperation is probably the best that can be done – but do not expect it to significantly reduce drug addiction. </p>
<p>The issue of “legal highs” is a cyclical process. They are all legal until they are made illegal, and then others take their place. And deciding when it is appropriate for a government to ban the sale and distribution of them is problematic. </p>
<p>Despite the significantly falling crime rates, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn1page1.stm">prison population</a> is at its biggest in Europe, and in British history. Even though improved facilities and better trained staff will be beneficial, Labour doesn’t provide the details for these pledges.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Hopkins Burke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour’s crime manifesto goes communitarian, despite them not branding it that way.Roger Hopkins Burke, Principal Lecturer in Criminology, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410142015-05-05T16:12:12Z2015-05-05T16:12:12ZThis election could decide whether arts win big, or get the boot<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80425/original/image-20150505-16630-vg0z5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your PM, painting by numbers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/4734740302/sizes/l">The Prime Minister's Office/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When survey organisations ask the general public about the most important issues facing the country, arts and culture don’t appear on the list. While you’ll consistently find <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3542/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March-2015-Issues-Index.aspx">immigration, the NHS, and the economy at the top</a>, arts and culture don’t even appear in <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/March15Issuestabs.pdf">Ipsos Mori’s tables</a>, coming behind bird flu, foot and mouth, and constitutional reform. </p>
<p>And although arts don’t appear on the headline summaries of the major party manifestos at this election, they do appear in the manifestos themselves, and at greater length than in 2010. Given the existence of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DMCS), it’s reasonable that the parties explain what they’d do with it. Indeed, the Arts Council for England has <a href="http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts-council-news/summary-party-manifestos-what-they-mean-arts-cultu/">already summarised</a> the major manifesto pledges, and The Stage <a href="https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/2015/general-election-arts-policies/">has interviewed</a> spokespeople from seven political parties. </p>
<h2>Populist policy</h2>
<p>What’s striking about the 2015 manifestos for the three main parties – Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats – is that they all pledge free admission to national museums near the top of their arts and culture sections. </p>
<p>This is a popular policy that only has mixed empirical support: while <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329777">some literature</a> suggests that free admission broadens the base of people who visit museums and galleries, <a href="http://ipsos-reach.com/DownloadPublication/541_sri-the-impact-of-free-entry-to-museums-2003.pdf">other evidence</a> suggests that free admission merely increases the number of visits from people who’d have gone anyway.</p>
<p>The Conservatives and Labour also both allude to regional inequality: Labour states that one of the goals of free admission to national museums is “to ensure that our great works of art and national heritage can be enjoyed in all parts of the country”; the Conservatives state that “we have made sure that arts funding benefits the whole of the UK.” </p>
<p><a href="http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/sites/artsprofessional.co.uk/files/rebalancing_our_cultural_capital.pdf">Recent research</a> shows that London receives far more cultural subsidy than any of the other English regions. And yet, of the two new buildings promised by the Conservatives, one is in London (“a modern world class concert hall”) and the other is in Manchester (“a new theatre, The Factory”). These investments are likely to reinforce geographical cultural inequality, rather than mitigate it. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80426/original/image-20150505-16654-1tq09l1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gather round, London crowds – there’s plenty for you to see.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_annemarie/9001102691/sizes/l">Andrew and Annemarie/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Arts for all</h2>
<p>But the manifestos are not all identical. Labour’s manifesto is distinctive in addressing the current inequalities in access to working in arts and culture, highlighted by <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-james-blunt-making-it-in-the-arts-is-easier-if-you-come-from-the-right-background-36519">the debate</a> over James Blunt and Eddie Redmayne as our exemplars of success. Following on from the <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/">Warwick Commission on the Future of Cultural Value</a>, and Ed Miliband’s “<a href="http://www.labourartsalliance.org.uk/text_of_ed_miliband_s_arts_for_all_speech">arts for all</a>” speech, the Labour party addresses the issue in its manifesto by promising “a universal entitlement to a creative education”. </p>
<p>It adds that “institutions that receive arts funding will be required to open up their doors to young people, and we will work with public bodies to rebalance arts funding across the country”. How this will fit with arts subjects’ absence from the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schools">English Baccalaureate</a> remains to be seen. </p>
<p>There are echoes of this in the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf?1429028133">Lib Dems’ manifesto</a>. They believe that “the arts have an essential role in the education system”. Their manifesto is the only one that addresses the arts outside of the arts and culture section, saying in the health section that they’ll “promote evidence-based ‘social prescribing’ of sport, arts and other activity to help tackle obesity, mental health problems and other health conditions, and work to widen the evidence base”. </p>
<p>This ties into existing measures such as the <a href="http://whatworkswellbeing.org/">What Works Centre for Wellbeing</a>. Beyond this, the Lib Dems’ manifesto has little on cultural matters to distinguish itself from the Conservative one.</p>
<p>The Conservative manifesto’s focus is more on funding. Beyond its promises for tax relief for the creative industries, the party’s claim that the coalition has sustained arts funding over the last parliament <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-arts-funding-been-decimated-or-protected-40037">has been disputed</a>. This makes it difficult to credit the remainder of this section of the manifesto. </p>
<p>Beyond their capital pledges, what’s distinctive about the Conservatives’ position is their focus on digital issues. In particular, they focus on what’s available through public libraries, and presenting ISPs with filtering and blocking requirements.</p>
<h2>To spend or not to spend?</h2>
<p>While the SNP doesn’t address issues of arts and culture in its manifesto at all, it’s not fair to infer that these aren’t priorities for the party. Arts and culture are devolved in Scotland, and so arguably they are not appropriate content for a Westminster manifesto. </p>
<p>The Plaid Cymru manifesto has a lot in common with the other parties. It includes promises for access through education, free admission to national museums, as well as Welsh-specific pledges such as supporting a Cardiff bid for European Capital of Culture.</p>
<p>UKIP provides the most abrupt answer to questions about the arts: it would abolish the DCMS. UKIP’s manifesto pledges to abolish government departments when their essential powers and functions can be merged into other departments. The DMCS, along with others like the Departments for Energy and Climate Change, and International Development, are earmarked for the chop. The remainder of the cultural part of their manifesto focuses mainly on heritage: how they would establish a minister for heritage and tourism, how they’d regenerate seaside towns, and how they’d “save the pub”. </p>
<p>Finally, the <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf">Greens’ manifesto</a> is the only one to include specific numbers that would be spent on the arts. The party pledges an increase of £500 million a year nationally, and reinstatement of funding at local authority level. Given this, the lack of detail on how this money would be spent, beyond “helping to keep local museums, theatres, libraries and art galleries open” is surprising. Their pledges focus on broadcasting and media, rather than what’s covered in other party manifestos. </p>
<p>Yet the Greens’ position on the cultural industries has had the most scrutiny of any party. Their manifesto states they’d “make copyright shorter in length, fair and flexible, and prevent patents applying to software”. <a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html">Documents on their website</a> suggest copyright would be limited to 14 years. </p>
<p>This plan has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/green-party-plan-to-limit-copyright-attacked-by-writers-and-artists">attacked by artists and writers</a>, who point out that this would have major effects on their income. Other <a href="http://www.danielbye.co.uk/blog/copyright-and-all-that">authors have suggested</a> it sits inside a broader approach to freeing artists from commercial forces. More immediately, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, <a href="http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/copyright-standing-up-for-brightons-creative-industries-artists-and-writers">has indicated</a> that this isn’t a core policy and is likely to be changed.</p>
<p>How much this matters remains to be seen. The fact that, relative to 2010, arts and culture have had so much prominence in the manifestos is striking. Given that the result after May 7 will almost certainly be a hung parliament, it is unclear how many of these policies will remain through coalition agreements. </p>
<p>On the one hand, it is unlikely that arts policy is a red line for any party. But on the other – with a handful of exceptions – these policies are hardly so far apart that agreement is impossible. What seems most likely is a raise in profile of the role of arts in education. But as everyone keeps saying, anything could happen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41014/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Arts and culture may not be big ticket policies, but the stakes are high in this election.Mark Taylor, Lecturer in Quantitative Research Methods, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/412162015-05-04T17:10:56Z2015-05-04T17:10:56ZTories and Lib Dems play catch-up with Labour on policies for women<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80312/original/image-20150504-8387-1vc2x9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should she buy it?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/libdems/17026123738/">Liberal Democrats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Which party has the best policy offerings for women? An analysis of the manifestos of the three main parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) reveals how their policies measure up.</p>
<h2>The Economy</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/21/spending-cuts-women-report">Women have not fared well</a> under the recent bout of austerity, with women comprising a disproportionate number of the staff, users and recipients of the public services and benefits that were cut. The government was criticised for neglecting the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/22/yvette-cooper-fawcett-society-cuts">gendered impact of its austerity programme</a>, with the lack of women involved in the decision-making process being cited as part of the problem. Will the parties offer women a better deal this time around?</p>
<p>The Conservatives claim they will, with a celebratory rhetoric arguing that things have never been better for women and that they seek “full, genuine gender equality”. But there is no recognition of the damage done to women, and the manifesto promises more cuts, especially to welfare (which will hit women hardest), along with more promises to axe red tape for businesses (which risks including cutting equality measures). </p>
<p>Labour is threatening to cap child benefit rises for two years, which will also hit women hardest, though the party also wants to raise the minimum wage, which will benefit women. The Lib Dems make somewhat unconvincing claims of getting an extra million women into work via more jobs, better childcare and better back-to-work support. They also want better gender balance in apprenticeships and, like the Tories, want to see more women on boards and other leadership roles – though, like the Tories, they are coy on the details of how to achieve this. </p>
<p>All three parties want companies with more than 250 employees to publish their pay gaps. Labour’s claim is most convincing here given that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/16/labour-transparency-gender-pay-gap-uk">the party already legislated for this</a> under the 2010 Equality Act. The other parties have stalled on its implementation ever since, thus making their current promises seem, at best, opportunistic.</p>
<h2>Parenting and care provision</h2>
<p>The three parties are trying to outdo each other on the question of childcare. The current government introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for working parents of 3-4 year olds – a welcome, if insufficient, measure. </p>
<p>Labour has long pledged to extend this to 25 hours a week. The Tories, not to be outdone, upped the ante to 30 hours a week. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have taken a different approach, offering 20 hours a week but extending this to apply from the end of parental leave. This approach is arguably the most logical; childcare is most expensive in the first three years of a child’s life, and the lack of support during this time pushes many parents – usually mothers – to take an extended career break that can be very damaging for their re-entry to the workforce. </p>
<p>However, a good idea in principle looks unlikely to be achieved in practice, with the Lib Dems themselves acknowledging that it is only a “goal”, with much less ambitious plans in the first instance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80313/original/image-20150504-8415-1368r40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Everyone has something to offer on childcare.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/13240262225/in/photolist-maZMCk-gXNQ3C-mb1ze8-maZPjr-mb2txC-maZNFc-mb1wYX-mb2rXy-mb2sQf-mb1weF">Number 10</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour’s other childcare offer is for all primary schools to provide wraparound care from 8am to 6pm, a policy also offered by UKIP. This is a great idea, although the suggestion that it will be staffed primarily by volunteers smacks a bit of the Big Society, with people (usually women) expected to <a href="http://www.workingmums.co.uk/the-big-society-will-hit-women-and-children-badly-claims-tuc-head-of-equality/">provide public services for free</a>. (The Conservatives are still banging the Big Society volunteering drum, with no recognition of the gendered consequences.)</p>
<p>The Conservatives and Lib Dems are promising to exempt parental pay from benefits capping, while Labour are offering to double the length and monetary value of statutory paternity leave. They also want to explore offering unpaid leave for grandparents wishing to be involved in childcare. The Lib Dems are offering a month of leave that is ringfenced for fathers, a policy that has <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-15">worked well in Scandinavia</a>. The Tories and Lib Dems are both offering more mental health support to women during and after pregnancy, while Labour promise 3000 more midwives. Meanwhile, Labour and the Lib Dems are also offering more support for carers, the <a href="http://www.carers.org/key-facts-about-carers">majority of whom are women</a>.</p>
<h2>Violence against women</h2>
<p>Although the universal <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.00258/abstract">condemnation of domestic violence</a> is only relatively recent, it is now an issue on which nearly everyone agrees. The Tories boast of having a good track record in this area, although the evidence <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/heather-mcrobie/austerity-and-domestic-violence-mapping-damage">speaks to the contrary</a>, and their emphasis on promoting marriage via tax incentives also discourages women from leaving violent relationships. Their claims to further protect women therefore ring hollow. </p>
<p>Labour does not offer a great deal more, focused primarily on low-cost initiatives and on changing mindsets, although the party does also offer a National Refuge Fund and wider access to Legal Aid for victims of domestic violence. </p>
<p>The Lib Dem offerings also focus on education and prevention, but their ineffective handling of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11045562/Dropping-action-against-Lord-Rennard-will-force-women-to-leave-Lib-Dems-in-astounding-numbers-alleged-victim-warns.html">Lord Rennard scandal</a> casts serious doubt over the party leadership’s understanding of respectful relationships.</p>
<p>A related theme in all manifestos, sometimes in the same section as domestic violence and sometimes in the international development section, is the theme of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and forced marriages. These are always popular targets as they <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukip-uses-womens-rights-as-a-trojan-horse-to-attack-minorities-40096">appeal both to liberals and to closet racists</a>. </p>
<p>The Lib Dems in particular focus heavily on these themes. Labour focuses instead on ending detention of pregnant asylum seekers and those who have been the victims of sexual abuse or trafficking. They also adopt a well-intended, if somewhat paternalist, stance towards protecting women and children overseas from violent conflict, eradicating poverty and promoting education. The Conservatives also mention protecting victims of sexual violence in the conflict in Syria.</p>
<p>Finally, on the other side of the penal system, the Conservatives want to explore initiatives to prevent the separation of female convicts from their children, while the Lib Dems want better rehabilitation of female offenders (without specifying why this would not also apply to men).</p>
<h2>Women’s representation</h2>
<p>All parties want more women in parliament (or so they claim). The Conservatives are fielding <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tories-boast-of-record-numbers-of-female-candidates-but-only-a-quarter-are-in-winnable-seats-10164663.html">more women candidates than ever before</a>, though often in unwinnable seats. The Lib Dems, whose track record in this area is set to get <a href="http://may2015.com/parties/the-lib-dems-are-set-to-have-just-one-female-mp-after-may-2015/">even worse</a>, speak only of making parliament more family-friendly and exploring job-sharing for MPs. Labour has by far the best record in this regard, and women have more input into their policies than in any other party, which <a href="http://www.feminizingpolitics.ac.uk/2015/04/15/winning-womens-votes/">Claire Annesley and Francesca Gains</a> argue is key to ensuring that women’s needs are actually met.</p>
<p>Overall, Labour continues to be in the lead in all these areas, although the other parties are trying to catch up. The Tories have some progressive offerings in their manifesto, though their economic policies continue to be punitive to women and the gendered impact of austerity continues to be imposed by a male-dominated cabinet. The Lib Dems have some interesting and innovative ideas – more than could be discussed here – but their track record fails to impress, and many of their commitments are weakly phrased as aspirations rather than promises. </p>
<p>It is good that <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-major-uk-parties-are-trying-to-court-womens-votes-41145">all the parties are eager</a> to make promises to women – but they would do well to remember that actions speak louder than words.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41216/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Which party has the best policy offerings for women? An analysis of the manifestos of the three main parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) reveals how their policies measure up. The Economy…Rainbow Murray, Reader, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/411042015-05-04T05:17:31Z2015-05-04T05:17:31ZAll for English devolution – but what about English democracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80109/original/image-20150501-23842-v9oijy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Flying high.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=4067419">Jeff Buck/Geograph</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>English devolution has emerged as a prominent feature of the 2015 general election campaign for a number of reasons. One is the ongoing process of devolution that has been taking place across the UK, with the formation of the assemblies for Northern Ireland and Wales, and the Scottish parliament. Another is the aftershock of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Throughout this time, England has also solidified as a distinct national political community.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00543.x/abstract">Research</a> indicates that over the past decade or so we have witnessed the progressive “Anglicisation” of the Westminster-based unionist parties. This means that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats have all become more focused on England, in their political outlook. </p>
<p>But up until now, these parties have sought to avoid the complications and risks of large-scale internal organisational reform in England. They have lacked the appropriate party structures, leadership or explicit policy agendas to properly engage with the complex set of “English Questions”, which have emerged in a post-devolution UK.</p>
<p>And yet, with the general election looming large, the issues concerning the role and place of England within an increasingly decentralised UK have gained traction among the public. This has further pushed questions of English national and regional political reform into the realms of party politics. </p>
<p>All the main political parties have now overtly embraced the narrative of English devolution – which, for the first time, features prominently in all the electoral manifestos. So what exactly do the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have planned for England?</p>
<h2>What’s on offer</h2>
<p>The Conservatives have put the English question at the core of their electoral message. Alongside their main <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">manifesto</a>, they have also launched their first ever <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/david-cameron-set-out-conservative-proposals-english-votes-english-laws-1498093">English manifesto</a> (although this is lacking substance, and no actual copy is available in print form or online). </p>
<p>In essence, the Conservative approach to English devolution focuses on three themes: a better and more balanced economy; bespoke Growth Deals and decentralisation of powers to (large) cities which choose to have elected mayor; and English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). The main manifesto also refers to “a core Conservative belief: power to the people” which is claimed to be at the base of their devolution strategy. </p>
<p>And yet, it is somewhat difficult to understand how such value squares with an approach to devolution in England which is based on negotiations between elites, and imposed from above without any public consultation.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ge15.demsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Labour-Manifesto-2015.pdf">Labour Party manifesto</a> places emphasis on the need to “end a century of centralisation” in England, by means of a devolution agenda based on three principles: city and county regions as <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-a-northern-powerhouse-doesnt-stop-at-manchester-33485">recipients of decentralised powers</a>; an English Devolution Act to set the terms of the powers and resources to be passed down to city and county regions, and to put in place a system of checks and balances (for example, an English Regional Cabinet Committee); and a New English Deal, aimed at empowering individuals and communities. However, it is not specified how the latter would take place, in practice. </p>
<p>At UK level, the party also proposes to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and the Regions, so as to represent every part of the UK. But in the absence of directly elected regional assemblies in England, it is unclear how Labour plans to bring together incongruent levels of territorial government: think of Scotland compared to, say, the Leeds City Region.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ge15.demsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Liberal-Democrat-Manifesto-2015.pdf">Liberal Democrat</a> approach to English concerns is based on five interconnected devolution proposals: EVEL; a constitutional convention; the local level as the main recipient of decentralised powers; more City Deals (like <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-a-northern-powerhouse-doesnt-stop-at-manchester-33485">Devo Manc</a>) to prompt economic growth; and “devolution on demand”, to allow councils to take control of the services that matter most to them.</p>
<h2>A constitutional convention</h2>
<p>Both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos include calls for a constitutional convention, albeit in slightly different forms. Labour put forward proposals for a people-led UK constitutional convention, to consider issues such as the role of English MPs in scrutinising legislation that affects only England. This would seem to suggest that the public should be actively involved in the discussion concerning the constitutional settlement of the UK. </p>
<p>The Lib Dems would also seek to establish a constitutional convention, but theirs would take input from political parties, academic and civil society groups, as well as the British public, and aim to draw up a full constitution for a federal UK. </p>
<p>But in practice, both of these proposals fail to live up to the high-minded rhetoric of democracy in which they are couched. Constitutional conventions like these would merely entail a discussion of the implications of a new constitutional settlement – which, however, would be ultimately devised by party elites, and not by the people.</p>
<p>All of this goes to show that the three manifestos have much in common with regard to the English question. They share a view that devolution in England should be primarily about economic development, and recognise the presence of a North-South divide within England. </p>
<p>But their plans continue to be based on the assumption that Westminster is better placed to decide the most suitable level of devolution, when it comes to resources and powers. On the issue of how to rebalance the role of England in the union, they all more or less overtly favour EVEL. Yet this solution does not equate to any real form of devolution, and does not do much to improve the territorial governance of England. It keeps decision making at the political centre, in Westminster. </p>
<p>Beyond their agreement on the need to give people more powers, the parties’ plans become more blurred, with top-down and elite-led approaches taking precedence, even within the narrative of those parties promoting constitutional conventions. While each party has started to recognise the importance of territorial politics in England, they still struggle to both let go of power, and to come to terms with the democratic aspect of devolution.</p>
<h2>Voices of democracy?</h2>
<p>The only advocates of the view that <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/arianna-giovannini/devolution-in-north-of-england-time-to-bring-people-into-debate">devolution in England is not just about reviving economies but also about improving democracy</a> are the regionalist parties based precisely in the areas that the mainstream parties are trying to “put back on track” with their devolution proposals. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/">Yorkshire First</a>, the <a href="http://www.thenortheastparty.org.uk/0191/NorthEastParty_Manifesto_2015.pdf">North East Party</a>, the <a href="http://www.campaignforthenorth.com/blog">Campaign for the North</a> and <a href="https://www.mebyonkernow.org/documents/mk_manifesto_2015.pdf">Mebyon Kernow</a> offer an alternative programme of decentralisation, which is intrinsically bottom up, and based on the establishment of directly elected regional assemblies, with powers equal to those of the Scottish parliament. This is understood as a key means to reinvigorate democracy, improve local government and, as a result, boost the economy. But it remains to be seen whether these political forces will gain enough momentum, either in the election or in the post-May 7 scenario, to make their democratic devolution claims resonate in the corridors of Westminster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All political parties are sitting up and paying attention to ‘English questions’, but only some offer a truly democratic approach.Arianna Giovannini, Lecturer in Politics, University of HuddersfieldAndrew Mycock, Reader in Politics, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404852015-04-24T17:05:36Z2015-04-24T17:05:36ZManifesto Check: Labour fails to see sport and physical activity as crucial public services<p>At first glance, Labour’s sports policy is at best marginal, with the text on sport and physical activity amounting to half a page. But the manifesto leaves some levers for any minister holding a sport, health, educational or international development brief within their portfolio, and evidence tells us that sport could make a contribution to every section of the manifesto.</p>
<p>The manifesto focuses on four areas: physical activity for health, organised school sport and two actions around football. No new spending pledges are evident.</p>
<h2>Helping grassroots grow</h2>
<p>The 2014 football deal <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/11/premier-league-tv-deal-sky-bt">£5.1 billion BT/SKY deal in 2014</a> earmarked 5% of net domestic rights for grassroots development. The English Premier League is one of the <a href="http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/pdf/mr03_eng.pdf">five wealthiest football leagues in world</a>. The explosion of revenue – should it be available to any incoming sports or culture minister to redistribute – is eye-catching.</p>
<p>But does 5% mean £400 million or £168 million? The Premier League maintains the 5% applies to domestic broadcasting income and not to overseas rights deals. Under the current deal, it would distribute £168 million. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/13/top-clubs-invest-tv-income-grassroots-labour-manifesto">Analysis suggests</a> that if the 5% tariff was applied to the total income, the figure is £400 million.</p>
<p>Football is in decline in terms of broad base participation, so funding is needed at the grassroots level. In the most recent <a href="https://www.sportengland.org/research/who-plays-sport/">Active People Survey 8</a>, the largest survey of sport and active recreation carried out in Europe, football presented further declines in participation. The number of 16 to 25-year-olds doing 30 minutes of moderate football has declined in 2013/14 compared to the first survey, which was undertaken in 2005/06.</p>
<h2>Gaps remain open</h2>
<p>In Labour’s 2015 manifesto, the governance of English football comes under scrutiny. Labour promises to legislate for powers to appoint two representatives for supporters to the board of every football club. But <a href="http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Fan-involvement-in-football-clubs-1566.aspx">evidence from a report</a> funded by the Scottish Government suggested that a one-size fits all solution should be not followed.</p>
<p>In its manifesto, Labour states that the UK’s football clubs are “more than just businesses”. Yet the party could do more to address the issue of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31713910">wealthy oligarchs running clubs</a>. For example, at Barcelona FC, the members – called <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/404511-cure-or-curse-socio-club-ownerships-in-spanish-la-liga">“socios”</a> – are able to <a href="http://arxiu.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/etapes_historia/etapa_4.html">democratically elect</a> the president of the club. </p>
<p>Labour’s manifesto pledges to promote the living wage, by providing tax rebates to firms that pay it. Questions about minimum and or living wages affects sport, as neither football or sport could function without a network of workers. Chelsea in England, and Hearts in Scotland are two of four clubs signed up to the living wage, and the Chief Executive of the English Premier League has commented that he was <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/premier-league-boss-under-fire-over-minimum-wage-paid-to-stadium-staff-10038464.html">“not uncomfortable”</a> with clubs paying some players “half a million pounds a week” while other employees earn below the living wage. </p>
<p>It seems that Labour has missed an opportunity to get a message and a pledge across about closing the gap between the rich and the less well off. Rather than just promoting the living wage, the explosion of football riches could be used to ensure the minimum wage, and increase the number of football clubs offering a living wage. </p>
<h2>Sport as a social glue</h2>
<p>The manifesto is strong on the need to protect public services. Labour frame discussions on the role of physical activity in relation to health and reducing inactivity levels.</p>
<p>At least two hours of organised school sport every week is promised. But the manifesto is silent on the gulf in provision between school sport facilities and curriculum time in the state and private sectors.</p>
<p><a href="http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/150EN.pdf">In France</a>, 14% of school curriculum time is given to physical education and sport, compared to 10% in the UK.</p>
<p>But sports also help with developing social networks. This and a sense of community and belonging have an influence on people’s health. Sport is part of the social glue that can help with a sense of community. To give everybody the chance to experience the very best of what sporting culture has to offer will not happen by accident.</p>
<p>Despite pledging to spend 0.7% of GDP on international development there is nothing on the role that sport has to play not just in international development but winning friends for the UK. Since 2003 the United Nations has increasingly used sport as a development tool. Norway, for example, does this through the advent of the annual <a href="http://www.norwaycup.no/en/">Norway Cup</a>.</p>
<h2>An elitist approach</h2>
<p>There is something elitist about Labours approach to culture. The manifesto endorses the Human Rights Act, prioritises the universal human right to art and culture, but ignores the UN declared human right to sport and physical activity and fails to acknowledge that sport is part of culture. To champion free access to museums and not swimming pools remains not just a funding challenge, but more importantly an ideological one.</p>
<p>For example, given the commitment to eliminate extreme poverty, the manifesto could acknowledge <a href="https://www.homelessworldcup.org">The Homeless World Cup</a>, which pledges to take 10 million out of poverty.</p>
<p>This manifesto would be stronger if it viewed sport and physical activity as crucial public services, part of British culture and an avenue of international development. Sport is one of many spaces that we hold in common and which we can and should be able to share as equals.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40485/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Jarvie receives funding from charities and research councils. He currently sits on the board of sportscotland and has provided independent advice on sports policy to governments both within and external to the UK. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Widdop receives funding from charities and research councils. He has previously provided independent advice and consultation services to the Scottish Government on sport and leisure consumption.</span></em></p>Labour hasn’t made any new evident spending pledges for sports. Is it failing to see sport as a crucial part of culture?Grant Jarvie, Chair of Sport, The University of EdinburghPaul Widdop, Research Fellow in Cultural and Sport Sociology , Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405112015-04-22T17:54:43Z2015-04-22T17:54:43ZHere’s where Britain’s political parties stand (and fall down) on immigration<p>Immigration clearly ranks as <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3542/EconomistIpsos-MORI-March-2015-Issues-Index.aspx">one of the most important issues</a> for voters in the lead up to the UK’s election. But public opinion doesn’t always match up with the evidence, and political parties can be led in different directions by both. With this in mind, the following takes stock of the different policies about immigration, as outlined in the parties’ manifestos. </p>
<h2>Where do they stand?</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-on-immigration-ukip-offers-only-confusion-40274">UKIP</a> makes the strongest claims about immigration causing harm. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-talk-tough-but-bring-nothing-new-on-immigration-40336">Conservative</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-immigration-policies-are-led-by-public-opinion-not-evidence-40109">Labour</a> manifestos also tend to emphasise the negatives of immigration, real or perceived. </p>
<p><a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf#page=50">Labour says</a> the number of low-skilled immigrants is too high and points to no high-skilled categories where they’d welcome increase. Both the <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf#page=31">Conservatives</a> and <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf#page=10">UKIP</a> want migration to be lower overall. In their <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/files/activist%20centre/press%20and%20policy/manifestos/manifesto2010#page=32">2010 manifesto</a>, the Conservatives proposed to reduce net migration to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13083781">tens of thousands</a> – a “goal” which the coalition government <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">dramatically missed</a>. This time around, the party refers only to an “ambition”. </p>
<p>In contrast, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-lib-dems-take-a-more-liberal-approach-to-immigration-40259">Liberal Democrats</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-the-green-party-offers-a-new-take-on-immigration-40186">Green Party</a> stress the benefits of immigration. Both parties propose more open policies, such as the restoration of post-study work visas for students and – in the case of the Greens – the abolition of minimum income requirements for the entry of spouses. The Greens are the most thoughtful on the global context, but their openness toward immigration is tempered by some scepticism toward immigration for business reasons or by the more affluent, citing worries about impacts on small businesses and house prices. </p>
<p>Among parties standing only in some parts of the UK, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-snp-migration-plans-focus-on-international-students-40506">SNP</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-plaid-cymru-wants-immigration-policy-to-address-welsh-needs-39589">Plaid Cymru</a> and the <a href="http://allianceparty.org/document/manifesto/alliance-2015-westminster-manifesto#document">Alliance Party</a> are all fairly liberal, and concerned with the regional suitability of immigration criteria. Of the Northern Irish parties, the <a href="http://uup.org/assets/images/uup%20ge%20manifesto.pdf#page=20">Ulster Unionist Party</a> and the <a href="http://dev.mydup.com/images/uploads/publications/DUP_Manifesto_2015_LR.pdf#page=9">Democratic Unionist Party</a> support immigration in moderation, while the nationalist <a href="http://www.sdlp.ie/site/assets/files/42192/westminster_manifesto.pdf#page=24">Social Democratic and Labour Party</a> and <a href="http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2015/Westminster_Manifesto_2015_web.pdf">Sinn Féin</a> are more or less silent on the matter.</p>
<h2>An EU issue</h2>
<p>UKIP’s approach is the most innovative and the most restrictive. The party wants to make sharp cuts to levels of immigration; an approach which is tied to their core proposal of withdrawing from the EU. Instead, the party wants to establish a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642">points-based system</a> which treats Commonwealth migrants comparably to European ones. </p>
<p>The Conservatives tie the issue of migration to a renegotiation of the terms of EU membership, as do the UUP. These parties question whether free movement meets the needs of established EU members. On the other hand, the SDLP’s positive comments on “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335088/SingleMarketFree_MovementPersons.pdf">free flow of people</a>” within the EU is as close as the party comes to discussing immigration.</p>
<p>EU withdrawal is advocated also by several parties outside the mainstream whose manifestos talk at length about immigration. The <a href="http://issuu.com/communist_party/docs/ge_manifesto">Communist Party</a> and <a href="http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/SLP%20Manifesto%202015%20pdf.pdf#page=8">Socialist Labour Party</a> on the left, for example, regard the EU as an organisation promoting capitalist interests at workers’ expense. Both propose immigration policies outside the EU with humanitarian emphasis. The Socialist Labour Party propose a policy of zero net migration with priority for Commonwealth immigrants. For the <a href="http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies/full-manifesto.html#3.15">English Democrats</a> on the right, withdrawal not only from the EU but from a wide range of international agreements is regarded as essential to regaining full border control. </p>
<h2>Boon, or burden on benefits?</h2>
<p>For several parties, concerns about immigration from the EU focus on <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-benefits-tourism-exist-22279">migrant benefit claims</a>. Yet evidence suggests there is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=5">little reason</a> to consider this a serious problem, and that restricting entitlements is unlikely therefore to discourage immigration. </p>
<p>The Conservatives, Labour, UKIP and DUP all want to delay receipt of benefits by migrants in various ways. The Conservative and Labour manifestos propose to rule out payment of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/23/child-benefit-payments-outside-uk">child benefit</a> for children abroad. This will raise issues with <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/amending-eu-free-movement-law-what-are.html">EU law</a>, whether renegotiating terms of the UK’s EU membership or not.</p>
<p>Stresses on public services are a prominent theme in the Conservative, Labour and UKIP manifestos alike. The Conservatives propose a fund to alleviate such pressures, which bears similarities to a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/06/fund-impact-immigration-scrapped">fund scrapped early in the last parliament</a>. </p>
<p>The best evidence suggests that migrants <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk">pay taxes</a> which more than cover the cost of benefits received, <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=9">in cash</a> or <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/immigration-and-public-finances">in kind</a>. The net contribution of migrants should alleviate the cost of providing public services. </p>
<h2>Where’s the evidence?</h2>
<p>Costs imposed by migrants on the <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=13">NHS</a> are mentioned by the Conservatives, and are repeatedly emphasised in UKIP’s discussion of immigration. In fact, immigrants are <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=9">typically healthier</a> than natives on arrival, becoming more like them the longer they stay, and make <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2013.00177.x/epdf">similar use of health services</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, UKIP would require that most migrants arrive with private insurance. Unsurprisingly, the issue is also prominent for the <a href="http://nhap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/National-Health-Action-Party-Election-Manifesto-2015.pdf#page=37">National Health Action party</a>. It proposes that stronger efforts be made to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329789/NHS_Implentatation_Plan_Phase_3.PDF">recover the costs</a> of treating migrants, but <a href="http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/Access_to_Health_Care.pdf">opposes refusing treatment</a> to anyone on ethical, economic and medical grounds.</p>
<p>Crime is another issue raised by Conservatives, Labour and UKIP in relation to immigration. In fact, evidence suggests migration is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=9">unassociated</a> with <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=19">changes in crime rates</a>.</p>
<p>Housing also figures in some manifestos. The Conservative party worry about use of social housing, and UKIP about housing shortages. The <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto.pdf#page=71">Greens</a>, on the other hand, worry about richer migrants pushing up house prices. Research on <a href="http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/Stephen.Nickell/Publication%20Files/Too%20Many%20People%20in%20Britain-May%202012.pdf">migration and housing</a> is still developing, but evidence does not point to strong upward pressure on <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=17">house prices</a>.</p>
<h2>Revival of student opportunity</h2>
<p>UKIP alone discusses the burden which immigration imposes on schools. Such a burden might simply arise from growing numbers, or it might follow from the difficulty of educating children of mixed backgrounds together. The <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/impact-immigration-educational-attainment-natives">international evidence</a> on <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-immigrant-children-affect-academic-achievement-native-dutch-children">the latter</a> is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=8">ambiguous</a>, but negative effects of high proportions of non-native speakers in the classroom on the performance of British-born children <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/language-barriers-impact-non-native-english-speakers-classroom">seems to be ruled out</a>. </p>
<p>Instead, the treatment of foreign university students is the biggest issue linking education and migration. Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour promise crackdowns on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/02/students-private-higher-education-colleges-taxpayer-subsidy-benefits-nao-loans">bogus institutions</a>. </p>
<p>UKIP and the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf#page=124">Lib Dems</a> pledge to <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_396645.pdf#page=17">separate students</a> in official statistics. Since the Lib Dems are not proposing to base targets on such statistics, the point of this is unclear. For UKIP, who do want to keep immigration down, but are not so averse to students, it makes more sense to exclude students from the count. </p>
<p>The most significant proposal here is reintroduction of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-changes-to-student-visa-system">post-study work route</a>, abolished under the current government, whereby students are permitted to work for two years after completing study. The Greens promise unconditional restoration, Plaid and the SNP propose restoration for students in Wales or Scotland, and the Lib Dems propose a reintroduction specifically for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-highly-educated-immigrants-raise-native-wages">STEM students</a> have been <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/international-graduate-students-are-critical-scientific-discovery">shown to be particularly associated</a>) with <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=7">innovation, trade and entrepreneurship</a> – <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/immigration-tax-skills-brilliance-quality-life">issues</a> which are largely absent from the discussion about migration in any manifesto.</p>
<h2>Little effect on labour</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/migration_policy_since_election-41297">cap on skilled immigration</a> would be retained by Conservative, Labour and UKIP. Indeed, UKIP would put a five-year moratorium on any unskilled immigration whatsoever, and restrict skilled immigration to 50,000 visas per year. By way of comparison, about <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/highly-skilled-migration-uk-2007-2013">221,000 highly skilled non-student migrants</a> are estimated to have entered the UK for work in the three years prior to 2013. </p>
<p>Evidence on how immigration affects <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf#page=8">average wages</a> and <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=3">employment</a> finds no significant adverse effects. If there are labour market effects, then they hit <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2012/07/what-effect-does-immigration-have-on-wages/">workers on the lowest wages</a>. The Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens all propose crackdowns on <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/migrant-workers-are-being-exploited-uk-we-must-take-action">exploitation</a>, through new legislation or greater monitoring.</p>
<p>Questions of <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Euctpb21/Cpapers/languageproficiency.pdf">language proficiency</a> appear in the manifestos of Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. The emphasis shifts from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420506/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_b_final.pdf">testing migrants’ English</a> to offering English lessons, as the tone of the manifesto becomes more liberal.</p>
<h2>Regional differences</h2>
<p>To the extent that labour market restrictions are set nationally, they may be inappropriate for the demands of <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-growth-and-jobs-positive-agenda">particular regions</a>. <a href="https://www.partyof.wales/uploads/Plaid_Cymru_2015_Westminster_Manifesto.pdf#page=38">Plaid</a>, the <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf#page=9">SNP</a> and the Alliance Party (in Northern Ireland) all call for greater regional sensitivity of policy in various respects, and complain about policies set to suit the south of England. But the unionist parties of Northern Ireland make no similar calls, and the nationalist parties of Northern Ireland say nothing on the issue.</p>
<p>One respect in which policy may be regionally discriminatory is nationally set <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-and-private-life-rule-changes-9-july-2012">income thresholds</a> for <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06724">family union</a>, which may hurt families more in lower income regions. Some suggest such policies are <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/one-rule-for-the-rich/">intrinsically unjust</a>. Plaid proposes a review; the Greens would drop the policy altogether. The Conservatives alone propose a toughening, while UKIP worries about <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256257/Sham_Marriage_and_Civil_Partnerships.pdf">sham marriages</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32205970">Full exit checks</a>, <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/count_people_in_and_out_uk-37635">frequently promised</a> and already <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk/exit-checks-fact-sheet">partly delivered</a>, are proposed by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP. Labour and UKIP both promise to expand border staff.</p>
<h2>Protecting the persecuted</h2>
<p>All main parties except the Conservatives reaffirm support for <a href="http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum">protecting victims of persecution</a>. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens would end <a href="https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/immigration-detention-inquiry-executive-summary.pdf">indefinite detention</a>. The Lib Dems and the Greens go further, advocating <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299415/Permission_to_Work_Asy_v6_0.pdf">allowing asylum seekers to work</a>. </p>
<p>For those whose asylum claims fail, the Greens suggest a review of legal status, while the Lib Dems would abolish the <a href="http://www.redcross.org.uk/en/About-us/Advocacy/Refugees/Azure-payment-card">Azure card</a> system. The Greens want applicability of legal aid to immigration and asylum work extended.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40511/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Preston has been part of teams receiving funding from the Home Office, Migration Advisory Committee and Low Pay Commission for past research on migration.</span></em></p>Our immigration expert evaluates the manifestos of 16 political parties, to see how their policies on immigration stack up.Ian Preston, Professor in the Department of Economics, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405872015-04-22T10:03:48Z2015-04-22T10:03:48ZWhat’s wrong with political manifestos, and how to fix them<p>The flurry of 2015 election manifesto releases has come to a close and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">much analysis</a> has already been offered of what the various parties are offering. Understandably much of the focus has been on the likelihood these policies will win votes in what is surely the most tightly fought electoral contest for a generation. </p>
<p>But should we not be asking a deeper question about these manifestos: how far do they allow the country to actually be governed? Too little thought has been given to whether the policies contained within them can actually be implemented in practice. </p>
<p>Part of the issue is inevitably fiscal. Ed Balls, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work-party-politics/articles/opinion/ed-balls-mp-obr-should-audit-all-manifestos">sensibly argued</a> that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility should independently scrutinise the fiscal plans of each of the parties, making the implications of each prospectus for taxing and spending more transparent. </p>
<p>But it’s also important to ensure that policies can be delivered in the real world. Too many fiascos have originated from parties failing to adequately stress-test new policy ideas. Take, for example, the Conservatives’ “community charge” (otherwise known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-what-does-alex-salmond-owe-the-poll-tax-25179">poll tax</a>) from the 1987 election manifesto. That later became unworkable due to its unfairness. Then there were Labour’s individual learning accounts, which had to be abandoned in 2001 following widespread <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/25/furthereducation.educationincrisis">financial fraud</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that once commitments are enshrined in party manifestos they are then difficult to break, even if they look increasingly unworkable, or do not provide value for money. </p>
<p>What’s the answer? The civil service should have a formal role in working with politicians and advisers to scrutinise policy ideas prior to their inclusion in manifestos. At present, there are <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN03318/preelection-contacts-between-civil-servants-and-opposition-parties">rules</a> governing the process by which the major opposition party consults Whitehall officials, but in practice these amount to cursory discussions between shadow cabinet ministers and permanent secretaries. The terms of engagement remain too limited.</p>
<p>Prior to 1997, civil servants in major government departments were forced to consult <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v17/n05/rw-johnson/megalo">Will Hutton’s The State We’re In</a> to discover more about New Labour’s plans for government. Little did they know that Blair’s Labour Party had already jettisoned many of Hutton’s ideas for a “stakeholder economy” on the basis that they might concede too much power to the trade unions. </p>
<p>Equally, in 2010 a profusion of books about Cameron’s vision of the Big Society didn’t provide much of a guide to the coalition government’s actual programme. Even the government of the day cannot involve the civil service formally in manifesto preparation for the next parliament, as I remember from my time as a special adviser prior to the 2010 general election. </p>
<p>Whether in government or opposition, the civil service is often left in the dark about each of the major parties’ intentions. This is dysfunctional and inimical to good government. Politicians rely on civil servants to turn abstract ideas into practical policy. </p>
<p>The Office for Budgetary Responsibility and key departments must be allowed to work alongside all the main parties to produce a fiscal plan for their policies, as well as helping them work out how they’d actually implement them if they formed a government. </p>
<p>Now, more than ever, we need political parties that are sufficiently prepared for governing. The political environment has become considerably more complex as the result of greater devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as membership of the European Union. </p>
<p>Tony Blair admitted in his own memoirs that he had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11148564">little idea of how to govern</a> after being elected in 1997, never having run a large organisation before. The coalition government similarly faced huge obstacles after 2010, in part due to its lack of experience. Reforming Whitehall’s role in working with the major parties would help to remedy this gap in the governance of Britain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is a member of the Labour party. He is formally a government special adviser. </span></em></p>Civil servants are left out of manifesto writing, and we’re all worse off for it.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404122015-04-21T14:12:16Z2015-04-21T14:12:16ZManifesto Check: Labour’s housing policy won’t help those most in need<p>In its <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf">manifesto</a>, the Labour Party presents its plans for housing under the remit of “Helping our families and communities to thrive”. Placed within the context of the biggest housing crisis in a generation, with rising homelessness cited as the obvious indication, Labour presents a range of measures to ensure that “everyone should be able to live in a secure home, whether they rent or buy”.</p>
<p>The main premise of the manifesto is to make owner-occupation more accessible through increasing supply and affordability. This policy trend reflects a cross-party consensus on promoting owner-occupation as the tenure of choice, and positioning this as an aspirational norm.</p>
<p>A second policy highlights the role of private renting as the next best option. Private renting is to be more attractive through increased regulation and security of tenure. The Labour Party’s plans regarding private renting regulation are clear up to a point and acknowledge the <a href="http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/">increasingly prominent role that private renting will take in the future</a>,suggesting more intervention than is currently the case. However, it is not entirely clear how such regulation will be implemented, how variable standards and practices across the sector will be addressed, and who will be responsible.</p>
<p>The manifesto highlights potential reform to local authority housing finance but it is not clear how such reform will play out or how state funding will work in practice. What is really striking, however, is the limited focus on social housing and its significant current role in housing provision for families and vulnerable groups in society. Housing associations are not mentioned at all and local authorities’ housing role appears to be limited to “enabling” and facilitating private sector partnerships. This reflects cross-party consensus on reductions in the role of the public sector and emphasis on private sector provision. However, it is not at all clear how vulnerable households would be catered for by the private sector.</p>
<p>Labour promises to build at least 200,000 new homes a year until 2020. This will go some way to mitigate the <a href="http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/...review/the-lyons-housing-review">shortage of available homes in areas of economic growth</a> and for those in a position to become owner-occupiers. However, it will not solve the difficulties of those who are experiencing the extreme effects of the housing crisis. The shortage of available affordable homes to rent across the UK will still affect those households in the most acute need.</p>
<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics from across the UK subject each party’s manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40412/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anya Ahmed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Miliband throws renters a lifeline but the neediest still miss out on affordable housing.Anya Ahmed, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402732015-04-16T15:36:09Z2015-04-16T15:36:09ZWelcome to the age of the multi-tasking manifesto<p>With the polls showing the Conservatives and Labour firmly stuck in <a href="http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/">neck-and-neck position</a>, they are playing on multiple chessboards in a desperate scramble for votes.</p>
<p>Their latest move has been to publish multitasking manifestos. These seek to attract floating voters, shore up core votes and woo potential coalition partners, all at the same time.</p>
<h2>Trading places</h2>
<p>Both Labour and the <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto">Conservatives</a> have dressed up as their opposites in their manifestos. For Labour that meant putting the deficit front and centre in a bid to show that the party can be trusted with the public finances.</p>
<p>Labour has declared a commitment to balancing the books since at least 2012, but for one reason or another, its message has not filtered through. To hammer it home, the manifesto includes a <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf">budget responsibility lock</a> to ensure that all pledges can be paid for.</p>
<p>The Conservatives ventured into the greener pastures of the Good Life agenda. As he tried to break away from Lynton Crosby’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-revolt-against-lynton-crosbys-aggressive-uninspiring-strategy-10094564.html">negative and defensive electoral strategy</a> David Cameron put forward sunny and meritocratic language.</p>
<p>He talked about a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32295970">buccaneering Britain</a>, where working parents will be given 30 hours of free childcare, where workers on the minimum wage will not pay personal income tax and where the NHS will be miraculously saved by new investment.</p>
<p>Judging by media and political reaction, the two parties’ attempt at political cross-dressing was not entirely successful. The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who is trying to position himself as the reasonable and credible choice, dismissed the ploy as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/lib-dems-only-alternative-coalition-snp-or-ukip-nick-clegg">“laughable and implausible”</a>.</p>
<h2>Fodder for the faithful</h2>
<p>If this first ploy fails, these manifestos offer a back up plan – both contain pledges designed to appeal to the party faithful. The Conservatives resurrected the Thatcherite golden classics of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-housing-plan-is-a-blast-from-the-past-amid-a-21st-century-crisis-40178">right-to-buy housing policy</a> and tax cuts for the middle classes. It remains a mystery how these promises will be funded but the party is trusted on the economy, so perhaps they can get away with it.</p>
<p>For Labour, the <a href="http://labourlist.org/2015/04/britain-can-be-better-the-full-text-of-milibands-manifesto-launch-speech/">lock of responsibility</a> liberated Miliband to pursue his campaign to address social inequality with a series of commitments on the minimum wage, zero-hours contracts, freezes on energy prices, a cap on train fares and extra investments on the NHS. This core vote strategy at least has the advantage of showcasing Miliband’s strengths and comfort zone.</p>
<h2>Pitching to partners</h2>
<p>But what is most striking about the 2015 manifestos is the face that they are noticeably aimed at attracting potential coalition partners.</p>
<p>The Conservatives’ Good Life manifesto makes overtures to a couple of Liberal Democrat’s pet areas – namely the promises to offer 30 hours of free childcare, to raise the personal tax allowance to £12,500 and to make extra investments in the NHS. Curiously, these two latter promises match to the penny the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf?1429028133">Liberal Democrats’</a> manifesto commitments. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78218/original/image-20150416-5654-8mwnsg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dave’s doubles up as a fan in the summer months.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jonathan Brady/PA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour seems also to have invited the Liberal Democrats to the ball by showing fiscal responsibility with the ‘triple lock of responsibility’. There is considerable overlap between the two parties when it comes to education, infrastructure investment, defence and Europe, but the Liberal Democrats have attacked Labour’s “irresponsible” approach to the deficit.</p>
<p>And since it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will supply Labour with sufficient seats to command a majority in the House of Commons, Labour’s manifesto also opens the door to a potential dialogue with the SNP.</p>
<p>The promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of next Parliament will not mollify the SNP, but a softer stance on Trident might and Labour’s manifesto leaves the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-leaves-the-door-open-to-downscale-trident-40110">door open for just that</a>. Incidentally, this position on the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent may also please the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>With this three-pronged electoral strategy, Labour and the Conservatives are trying to cover the different fronts of the electoral battle. It is a high-risk strategy as the parties are testing a new plan on an unknown battleground. But given the high stakes of this election they would be foolish not to at least try it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
With the polls showing the Conservatives and Labour firmly stuck in neck-and-neck position, they are playing on multiple chessboards in a desperate scramble for votes. Their latest move has been to publish…Eunice Goes, Associate Professor of Politics, Richmond American International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401092015-04-15T05:20:07Z2015-04-15T05:20:07ZManifesto Check: Labour’s immigration policies are led by public opinion, not evidence<p>Labour’s commitment to controlling immigration had already been made clear by its announcement as one of Labour’s <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/105262118234/launch-of-labours-second-election-pledge">five election pledges</a>. But the party’s manifesto goes further to explain the policies, and how they would be implemented. </p>
<p>The party declares that it wishes to “look outward”, while recognising “public anxiety” and the people’s need “to feel secure in the strength of our borders.” The manifesto identifies specific public concerns, such as effects on wages, public services and “our shared way of life”. Public anxiety is <a href="http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/immigration/introduction.aspx">undeniable</a>, and according to research, social concerns may be <a href="http://creamcomments.blogspot.com/2012/02/attitudes-to-immigration.html">more significant</a> than economic ones. </p>
<p>No view is advanced by Labour as to whether these concerns are well-founded: research suggests that economic concerns, for example, are not. The evidence fails to point persuasively to any adverse impact <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf">on average wages</a> or <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/comments.php">employment</a>. As regards public finances, research shows that recent immigrants both <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf">contribute more in taxes</a> than they <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk">withdraw in calls on public services</a> and provide much of the staffing for <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=13">some parts of the public sector</a>. </p>
<p>Restricting immigration might assuage public concern, but it could also fail to achieve gains in average wages, and lead to less healthy public finances.</p>
<h2>Different types of immigrants</h2>
<p>Public opinion distinguishes between <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern#kp5">different types of immigrants</a>. For example, the British public tends to be more positive about students, highly-skilled migrants and close family members, than about low-skilled economic migrants, extended family members, refugees and those who enter or stay in the country illegally. </p>
<p>Labour’s manifesto promises to mildly tighten, or to maintain the tightness of, restrictions on unpopular forms of migration. Although the party mentions some of the benefits of some forms of immigration – such as overseas students – it does not make any proposals to relax restrictions for these groups.</p>
<p>The manifesto claims that under a Labour government, immigration by serious criminals will be more strongly policed. Inevitably, immigrants include some people who will commit crimes and some people who will be victims of crimes. But many studies in a number of countries have failed to find <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=9">a convincing association</a> between <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=19">migration flows and crime rates</a>.</p>
<p>Labour also plans to crack down on the abuse of short-term student visas, although how this policy will differ to the kind of tightening that has <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/student-visa-rules-tightened-by-government/2014823.article">already been pursued</a> is unclear. There is a risk of <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/international-graduate-students-are-critical-scientific-discovery">discouragement to innovation</a> from limiting graduate recruitment and the party welcomes the contributions of overseas students, but there are no explicit proposals for changes to terms of entry for this group (such as reviving a <a href="http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-growth-and-jobs-positive-agenda#.VSzCUPnF8kE">post-study work route</a>).</p>
<p>Labour’s manifesto criticises the Conservatives for undermining public trust by committing to a target <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638174">that was not met</a>. The party makes no commitment to any defined number or cap on overall immigration, and there is therefore no discussion about which types of immigrants should be considered in any target. But the party does state a view that low skilled migration “needs to come down” and does commit to retaining the <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/migration_policy_since_election-41297">cap on migration</a> for workers from outside the EU, currently set at a little over 20 thousand for employer-sponsored skilled migrants.</p>
<h2>The European issue</h2>
<p>In its section on Europe, the manifesto promises to “secure reforms to immigration and social security rules, as well as pushing for stronger transitional controls”. Evidence that <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/Preston-2014-The_Economic_Journal.pdf#page=5">welfare tourism</a> is a <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=19">serious problem</a> is actually slim, so the extent to which this might substantially discourage European migration is doubtful. Nevertheless, the party pledges to revoke the right to send <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/23/child-benefit-payments-outside-uk">child benefits abroad</a>, and promises to implement a two-year delay on benefit receipt for EU migrants. </p>
<p>The implementation of such policies would face issues of compatibility with <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/amending-eu-free-movement-law-what-are.html">EU law</a>. As a result, how easy these changes are to implement will depend on the extent to which they are regarded as inhibiting freedom of movement for work, and on the negotiating abilities of a Labour government within the EU.</p>
<p>Labour also promises to protect low wages against exploitative immigration, with bans on recruitment agencies hiring exclusively from abroad, and an extension of <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/11/contents">Gangmaster Licensing law</a> (which currently covers only agriculture and food processing). It is true that the strongest evidence of any negative effects of immigration on wages occurs at the <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2012/07/what-effect-does-immigration-have-on-wages/">bottom end</a> of the distribution, so this measure seems appropriately targeted. </p>
<p>Alongside these proposed tightenings, there are also administrative changes. The party commits itself to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32205970">full checks on exits</a>, a <a href="https://fullfact.org/immigration/count_people_in_and_out_uk-37635">promise frequently made</a> by different parties over the past decade and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk/exit-checks-fact-sheet">already partially implemented</a>. In principle, if realised, this should improve monitoring of net migration numbers. More border staff are promised, financed by a charge on non-visa visitors of a small – but unspecified – magnitude.</p>
<p>There are some proposals to address rights and welfare of migrants. There is a promise to end <a href="https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/immigration-detention-inquiry-executive-summary.pdf">indefinite detention</a>, and to end detention altogether for pregnant women and victims of trafficking and abuse. Labour pledges to provide refuge to genuine victims of persecution, but there is no explicit commitment to numbers. The UK currently <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-much-are-european-countries-doing-to-help-shelter-syrian-refugees-38731">does less than its EU neighbours</a> in terms of sheltering Syrian refugees. </p>
<p>There is no mention of any change to rules on <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn06724">family migration</a>.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40109/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Preston has been part of teams receiving funding from the Home Office, Migration Advisory Committee and Low Pay Commission for past research on migration. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Our expert shows that public opinion may not be the best guide for effective policy.Ian Preston, Professor in the Department of Economics, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401222015-04-14T18:31:45Z2015-04-14T18:31:45ZManifesto Check: Labour ready to go green, but remains grey on detail<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s Manifesto Check, where academics from across the UK subject each party’s manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny.</em></p>
<p>Labour’s energy and climate policies appear to be based around two main ideas: more government oversight of energy markets to ensure a fairer deal for customers and greater direction to efforts to tackle climate change; and support for the green economy as a driver of new employment. </p>
<h2>Green jobs</h2>
<p>The headline promise to create a million additional green jobs is optimistic but based on a reasonable analysis of employment trends.</p>
<p>An increase in low-carbon jobs is a logical by-product of the decarbonisation of the economy scheduled through the carbon budgets established by the previous government and continued by the coalition: more people servicing wind farms, for example, and fewer servicing coal-fired power stations. According to a recent UKERC study, <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ukerc+low+carbon+jobs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=-LQsVazdBtDpaOjfgpAG">renewable energy is also more labour intensive than fossil fuel-based energy</a>, which suggests a natural net increase in jobs.</p>
<p>Other green economy job types also exist. The <a href="http://www.bls.gov/green/home.htm">US Bureau of Labour Statistics</a> defines green jobs as relating to renewable energy; energy efficiency; pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse gas reduction, and recycling and reuse; natural resources conservation; and environmental education and enforcement.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224068/bis-13-p143-low-carbon-and-environmental-goods-and-services-report-2011-12.pdf">UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills</a>, estimated that in 2011-12 there were just under a million low-carbon jobs in the UK. A further million means doubling this total. A wider definition of “green jobs” would yield a larger figure, of course, but more detail is needed before a promise of a million new green jobs could be seen as other than optimistic.</p>
<p>Augmenting the Green Investment Bank might fill some funding gaps but the lion’s share of finance will need to be charmed out of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geob.12047/abstract">financially motivated overseas investors and the emerging cleantech investment sector</a>. Achieving one million jobs would almost certainly also require large-scale manufacturing and exports in areas where the UK is strong in research and development, such as wind and solar-photovoltaics, but where <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10227981/Two-thirds-of-huge-UK-wind-farms-built-by-foreign-companies.html">commercial production has tended to go overseas</a>.</p>
<h2>Clean economy</h2>
<p>The commitment to speeding up the decarbonisation of the economy is also shown by the promise to remove carbon from the UK’s electricity supply altogether by 2030 – beyond the requirements of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050">Climate Change Act</a>. </p>
<p>This is somewhat undercut, however, by the promise to permit the extraction of unconventional oil and gas – aka fracking – provided that a robust environmental and regulatory is in place, as this would increase fossil fuel extraction.</p>
<h2>Price freezing</h2>
<p>Imposing an energy price freeze would be merely the latest in a series of moves between free and regulated energy prices. Energy prices are regulated in many countries, and were in the UK until privatisation in the 1980s. Although a price freeze could in principle wreck the profits of energy companies if wholesale <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/brent-oil-price-forecasts-2015-2014-12?r=US">energy costs rebound after their free-fall in 2014</a>, the freeze is only intended to last until 2017 and Labour is aware that energy companies need to make money if they are to continue to provide energy investment. </p>
<p>However, price guarantee feed-in tariffs for renewable energy mean that investment will continue to flow, so this promise is really an electoral gesture and signifies very little.</p>
<p>It is difficult to evaluate Labour’s promise to combat manipulation of the energy market by obliging the Big Six energy companies to split their generation and supply businesses, although standard economic theory suggests that this could be effective.</p>
<p>Summing up, Labour’s energy policies show ambition and awareness of the challenges, but a lot more detail is needed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40122/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour’s green jobs numbers add up, but the picture’s less clear on fracking.Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityIan Bailey, Professor of Environmental Politics, University of PlymouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401762015-04-14T14:27:07Z2015-04-14T14:27:07ZManifesto Check: stacking up Labour’s economic plans<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>Jonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics at University of Sheffield</strong></p>
<p>A key tenet of the <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf">Labour Party’s manifesto</a> is the commitment to reducing the budget deficit year-on-year through the lifetime of the next parliament. The manifesto views the UK economy as exhibiting key structural weaknesses. These include poor productivity growth and a stagnation in living standards. </p>
<p>There are a range of measures designed to address this by attempting to raise productivity as well as targeting the cost of living. Although the point is not made explicitly, sustained growth is required for this programme to be achieved.</p>
<h2>The deficit elimination challenge</h2>
<p>Labour’s pledge not to raise the basic rate of income or corporation tax, VAT or National Insurance will make eliminating the budget deficit challenging. There are, though, clear differences between Labour’s proposals and those of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The timescale for eliminating the deficit is longer and Labour has still allowed itself room to borrow to finance investment – how much remains unclear. </p>
<p>In other respects there are strong similarities between Labour’s proposals and those of the coalition partners. The same key budgets are ring-fenced – health, education and foreign aid (though Labour includes higher and further education whereas the Conservatives appear only to be ring-fencing the schools budget). Incidentally, the aid budget is tiny, at around 1.4% of government expenditure. </p>
<p>This means that cuts – the Labour manifesto explicitly uses the term – would have to fall on those departmental budgets that have <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spendingcuts/resources/database/reportsgroups/">already borne the brunt of these under the coalition</a>. There is an explicit commitment to cap the welfare budget. Although winter fuel payments would be ended for wealthier pensioners, as with the coalition, the burden would fall on working age benefits. This is partly linked to other measures to help workers – raising the minimum wage and promoting the living wage should reduce working tax credits and promoting house building should help to reduce the housing benefits bill. </p>
<p>Although Labour makes a concerted attempt to cost its commitments and indicate how they would be funded, questions remain. Cost savings, closing tax loopholes and clamping down on tax evasion are measures that governments regularly propose, but it isn’t clear that they would be sufficient. </p>
<h2>Achieving growth</h2>
<p>More fundamentally, governments do not determine the budget deficit – contrary to the impression given by much of the media and indeed politicians. Governments do set tax rates and expenditure plans, but the deficit (or surplus) is ultimately <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-george-osborne-fell-into-the-deficit-gap-35006">determined by growth in the economy</a>. </p>
<p>The Labour manifesto recognises that growth, and rising incomes leading to more tax receipts, will eliminate the deficit. A series of measures are proposed for this, in particular a guarantee of apprenticeships for suitably qualified school leavers and introducing a British Investment Bank and regional banks together with measures to reform the financial system to promote longer term investment.</p>
<p>Historically the British economy has shown <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/growthCommission/documents/pdf/GCReportSummary.pdf">weaknesses in investment and in skills</a>, particularly among non-graduates. Since the start of the financial crisis productivity and real wages have stagnated in the UK. Productivity is only likely to rise with higher investment and improved skills. Addressing the medium-run weaknesses of the British economy here is therefore desirable. </p>
<p>This is against a background of a dearth of profitable investment opportunities in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10367229/OBR-UK-hurt-more-by-lack-of-investment-than-austerity.html">advanced economies</a>. Companies will only invest if they believe demand for their products will materialise – something that would be hampered by continued austerity.</p>
<h2>Banking and finance</h2>
<p><strong>Rosa Lastra, Professor of International Financial and Monetary Law at Queen Mary University of London</strong></p>
<p>The Labour Party manifesto promises to improve the access to credit for many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-impact-of-the-financial-crisis-on-bank-lending-to-smes-econometric-analysis-from-the-uk-survey-of-sme-finances">They have suffered</a> in the aftermath of the financial crisis, finding it difficult to get the financing they need to invest and grow their business. An added problem for SMEs is the lack of an alternative to traditional bank lending.</p>
<p>Labour promises to establish a British Investment Bank with the mission to help businesses grow, to create wealth and jobs and to address the long standing problems in infrastructure investment. How this will be funded and structured (as it aspires to support a network of regional banks) will determine its potential success (or failure). </p>
<p>As Nick Tott, author of <a href="http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-review/the-case-for-a-british-investment-bank">the report making the case for a British Investment Bank</a> argues, it should operate in a commercial manner and all lending should be in addition to, or in partnership with, private lending. Regarding the desirability of a government-backed institution for SMEs, he points out that they exist in all other G8 countries.</p>
<p>Labour also plans to address the relative lack of competition in the banking market. This follows the results of the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/inquiries1/parliament-2010/icb-final-report/">inquiry of the Independent Commission on Banking</a>, which identified that the four largest banks account for 85% of SME current accounts. </p>
<p>They want to pave the way for the introduction of at least two new challenger banks. Labour also want to find alternatives to payday lenders possibly via the development of credit unions. Competition in banking should certainly be welcome as a way to address the perverse incentives of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29982181">too-big-to-fail institutions</a>. </p>
<p>All political parties should be rightly concerned about the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292197000275">rise in inequality</a>, with a large number of people <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/18/economy-bleak-british-workers-technology">living with low wages</a> as well as increasing anxiety about the capacity of pensions to avert <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/pensions-at-a-glance-2013/old-age-income-poverty_pension_glance-2013-26-en">old age poverty</a>. Thomas Piketty, the French economist feted for his work <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capital_in_the_twenty_first_century?language=en">Capital in the Twenty First Century</a>, has contributed to bringing the issues of inequality to the forefront of economic and policy debate. </p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40176/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Perraton does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosa Lastra does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>A key tenet of the Labour Party’s manifesto is reducing the budget deficit year-on-year through the lifetime of the next parliament.Jonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of SheffieldRosa Lastra, Professor of International Financial and Monetary Law, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401012015-04-13T20:28:26Z2015-04-13T20:28:26ZManifesto Check: no evidence that Labour early years policy will close education gap<p>Labour’s <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">2015 manifesto</a> aims to improve life for children and it suggests that one effective means of achieving that aim is to invest in early years’ provision. </p>
<p>The claim is that a child’s language development at the age of two is a strong predictor of reading ability in primary school and later attainment. The evidence for this checks out: early language development is indeed an important precursor to reading and later attainment. Take, for example, vocabulary. At around the age of 18 months, young children’s vocabulary begins to expand rapidly and it is estimated that they learn words at a rate of one every two waking hours; a trend that will <a href="http://stevenpinker.com/publications/language-instinct">continue to adolescence</a>. </p>
<h2>Sure Start</h2>
<p>Labour says it will “restore the role of Sure Start centres as family hubs”.
A recent report from the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en">OECD</a> highlighted the link between young children’s early personal, social and emotional development and later academic attainment. It makes sense to provide the best possible care and educational opportunities in the early years of children’s lives, but do Sure Start centres represent the most effective method? And are they likely to contribute to closing the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-the-pupil-premium-narrowing-the-attainment-gap-39601">attainment gap</a> seen between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from more affluent environments?</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at recent experience. Following their election in 1997, Labour pledged to improve services, including educational provision, with the aim of reducing the impact of poverty and social deprivation in England. The Sure Start initiative was introduced. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/impact/documents/41.pdf">National Evaluation of Sure Start team</a> did find some positive impacts on a range of factors including three-year-olds’ personal and social development, but there has been criticism of the initiative. Early childhood education experts have <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/review-research-links-between-education-and-poverty">stated that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>These interventions have been undertaken in a piecemeal fashion and so far have had only a very partial impact in breaking the link between poverty and poor educational attainment. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 2011, I analysed the early reading and mathematics development of children starting school between 2001 and 2009, a period that included the introduction and embedding of Sure Start local programmes, and concluded that there were <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/education/staff/profile/?mode=pdetail&id=2582&sid=2582&pdetail=61779">no significant changes</a>. </p>
<p>More recently, my colleagues and I analysed data for groups of children starting school between 2000 and 2006, following them up to the end of primary schools. <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Two_classrooms_-_web.pdf?1417693373">We concluded</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The gap appears to remain consistent and overall, there is little evidence to suggest that it is closing over time for either Maths or English. On average, children who are entitled to free school meals start school with lower scores in reading and mathematics than their peers and that this trend persists to the end of primary school. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Academics have warned that while interventions might appear to be promising when trialled in optimum environments, it is difficult to bring about effective change when they are scaled up to community-based programmes.</p>
<p>If Labour is to bring about positive change through a revival of Sure Start, serious consideration needs to be taken of the programmes that the centres provide and the strategies to attract the families in most need of the facilities rather than continue to replicate a system that doesn’t have good evidence of impact. A crucial element of success is a high quality, well-planned evaluation programme so that provision can be continuously monitored and improved.</p>
<h2>Pupil premium</h2>
<p>In <a>education policies released before the full manifesto</a>, Labour has also pledged to continue the early years pupil premium “working with early years settings to ensure it is used effectively” with the aim of helping all children, whatever their background, to be fluent readers by the age of 11. </p>
<p>This should surely be a popular policy but, again, research has shown that it is difficult to raise standards. For example, we reviewed many studies and found that the reading standards of children aged 11 <a href="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2007/11/01/overtime.pdf">remained almost static</a> over a period of more than 50 years from the 1950s up to when out review was published in 2007. </p>
<p>The Pupil Premium Toolkit, published by the Education Endowment Foundation, reviews the effectiveness of a wide range of educational interventions and provides a really useful evidence base for planning future improvements to education system but we still need to be wary. Small-scale research studies often have a much bigger impact than when a programme is scaled up. Again I would strongly recommend evaluation of impact be built in from the outset rather than spending money and finding out too late that nothing has changed.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christine Merrell receives funding from Esme Fairbairn Foundation. For the research investigating standards over time in reading and mathematics by Tymms and Merrell in 2007, which was published as part of the Cambridge Primary Review, the authors received an honorarium of £1,000, which was paid to the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
</span></em></p>Labour’s 2015 manifesto aims to improve life for children and it suggests that one effective means of achieving that aim is to invest in early years’ provision. The claim is that a child’s language development…Christine Merrell, Reader in Education, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401332015-04-13T17:49:17Z2015-04-13T17:49:17ZManifesto Check: Labour resurrects past education policies, but will they work?<p>Labour sees education as an investment, in terms of both personal fulfilment and economic prosperity, and intends to protect the education budget from early years to post-16 education. It also acknowledges that the education of half of the school population in secondary schools needs serious re-thinking. Its <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">manifesto</a> identifies six key policy areas as:</p>
<ul>
<li>Introducing a new Technical Baccalaureate for 16 to-18-year olds<br></li>
<li>Protecting the education budget from early years through to post-16 education<br></li>
<li>Guarantee that all teachers in state schools will be qualified, with the re-introduction of qualified teacher status<br></li>
<li>Appointing Directors of School Standards to drive up standards in every area<br></li>
<li>Capping class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds at 30 or under</li>
<li>Ensuring all young people study English and Maths to age 18</li>
</ul>
<p>It is certainly the case that <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1393172?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105986650851">post-16 education is a mess</a> and needs significant attention. Labour’s plans are for flagship Institutes of Technical Education as trail-blazers, but how they will raise the standard and status of vocational and technical education, a worthy aspiration, is unclear. </p>
<p>To convince employers this will be a “gold-standard qualification” and they will provide accreditation. Face-to-face careers advice and the promise of work experience for 14 to 16-year-olds and more apprenticeships is attempting to tackle a very real issue, but the logistical and financial challenge of this should not be underestimated.</p>
<h2>Zombie policies</h2>
<p>Qualified teacher status will be compulsory again, with teachers able to gain “Master Teacher” status, but will also be required to keep their knowledge and skills up to date, presumably monitored by the new College of Teaching, which Labour also endorses. Teach First also gets a thumbs up, so presumably the diversity of routes into teaching will remain.</p>
<p>It looks like the National College for Teaching and Leadership is going to be rebranded as the School Leadership Institute, just how similar this will be to the former National College for School Leadership (or even the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services) has yet to be seen; how this will work with the new College of Teaching is unclear. Where will the responsibility for teacher recruitment lie? This will certainly be a challenging issue with increasing rolls and poor teacher retention.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-nation-impact-of-education-reforms-will-take-decades-to-play-out-39526">table tennis of reinstating policies and bodies</a> may well be frustrating for the profession. We will see yet more sparkle with “gold-standard” headship qualifications, just so long as they don’t call it the National Professional Qualification for Headteachers (NPQH) which was (briefly) made mandatory in 2009.</p>
<p>Smaller class sizes, always popular with parents, are assured, with a cap at 30 re-introduced for five to seven year olds, but no acknowledgement that smaller classes are a <a href="https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/toolkit-a-z/reducing-class-size/">poor investment in most circumstances in England</a>. Evidence-based policy may face something of a threat.</p>
<h2>Gold standards?</h2>
<p>A few other policies seem to echo the Conservatives. Directors of School Standards will be appointed at a local level to monitor performance and intervene in under-performing schools to support them to improve. We already have eight regional schools commissioners, who take on key decisions regarding academies and free schools, so perhaps the number and remit will change, especially as the free schools programme will be terminated.</p>
<p>What’s missing, of course, is the detail on how they will achieve this, both in terms of what “gold standard” means for the Technical Baccalaureate, how accreditation by employers will work, where the half million or so work placements will be found each year as well as other crucial issues such as how the budget will be “protected” in times of fiscal squeeze. </p>
<p>Will careers advisors and work experience placements receive additional funding, or will this need to be found from existing, but protected budgets? The devil will also be in the detail of how the assessment and inspection of the technical route is balanced with the academic assessment currently undertaken by Ofsted. How will they ensure that pupils are sufficiently challenged to achieve and that schools do not game the system (as some have understandably become expert at) between the academic and vocational, so that disadvantage does not become synonymous with vocational?</p>
<p><em>The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a> deploys academic expertise to scrutinise the parties’ plans.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40133/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Durham University received funding from the Sutton Trust to produce the Pupil Premium Toolkit. This has subsequently been developed into an online resource, the Teaching and Learning Toolkit, by the Education Endowment Foundation who provide funding to Durham University. He has also led and managed projects where Durham University has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Department for Education and the National College for Teaching & Leadership. This article does not represent the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Can Labour get by on zombie policies, when it comes to education.Steve Higgins, Professor of Education, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401082015-04-13T17:20:38Z2015-04-13T17:20:38ZManifesto Check: Labour’s top policies<p><em>Welcome to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/manifesto-check-2015">Manifesto Check</a>, where academics subject each party’s election manifesto to unbiased, expert scrutiny. Here is what our experts had to say about Labour’s top policies. Follow the links for further analysis.</em></p>
<h2>Economy</h2>
<p><strong>Jonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics at University of Sheffield</strong></p>
<p>Labour’s pledge not to raise the basic rate of income or corporation tax, VAT or National Insurance will make eliminating the budget deficit challenging. There are, though, clear differences between Labour’s proposals and those of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The timescale for eliminating the deficit is longer, and Labour has still allowed itself room to borrow to finance investment -– how much remains unclear.</p>
<p>In other respects there are strong similarities between Labour’s proposals and those of the coalition partners. The same key budgets are ring-fenced – health, education and foreign aid (though Labour includes higher and further education whereas the Conservatives appear only to be ring-fencing the schools budget). Incidentally, the aid budget is tiny, at around 1.4% of government expenditure.</p>
<p>This means that cuts – the Labour manifesto explicitly uses the term – would have to fall on those departmental budgets that have <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spendingcuts/resources/database/reportsgroups/">already borne the brunt of these under the coalition</a>. There is an explicit commitment to cap the welfare budget. Although winter fuel payments would be ended for wealthier pensioners, as with the coalition, the burden would fall on working age benefits. This is partly linked to other measures to help workers – raising the minimum wage and promoting the living wage should reduce working tax credits and promoting house building should help to reduce the housing benefits bill.</p>
<p>Although Labour makes a concerted attempt to cost its commitments and indicate how they would be funded, questions remain. Cost savings, closing tax loopholes and clamping down on tax evasion are measures that governments regularly propose, but it isn’t clear that they would be sufficient.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-stacking-up-labours-deficit-reduction-plans-40176">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Education</h2>
<p><strong>Christine Merrell, Reader in Education, Durham University</strong></p>
<p>Labour says it will “restore the role of Sure Start centres as family hubs”. It makes sense to provide the best possible care and educational opportunities in the early years of children’s lives, but do Sure Start centres represent the most effective method? And are they likely to contribute to closing the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-the-pupil-premium-narrowing-the-attainment-gap-39601">attainment gap</a> seen between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from more affluent environments?</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at recent experience. Following their election in 1997, Labour pledged to improve services, including educational provision, with the aim of reducing the impact of poverty and social deprivation in England. The Sure Start initiative was introduced. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/impact/documents/41.pdf">National Evaluation of Sure Start team</a> did find some positive impacts on a range of factors including three-year-olds’ personal and social development, but there has been criticism of the initiative. Early childhood education experts have <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/review-research-links-between-education-and-poverty">stated that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>These interventions have been undertaken in a piecemeal fashion and so far have had only a very partial impact in breaking the link between poverty and poor educational attainment. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Read more <a href="http://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-no-evidence-that-labour-early-years-policy-will-close-education-gap-40101">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Steve Higgins, Professor of Education at Durham University</strong></p>
<p>Labour sees education as an investment, in terms of both personal fulfilment and economic prosperity, and intends to protect the education budget from early years to post-16 education. It also acknowledges that the education of half of the school population in secondary schools needs serious re-thinking. Its <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">manifesto</a> identifies six key policy areas as:</p>
<ul>
<li>Introducing a new Technical Baccalaureate for 16 to-18-year olds<br></li>
<li>Protecting the education budget from early years through to post-16 education<br></li>
<li>Guarantee that all teachers in state schools will be qualified, with the re-introduction of qualified teacher status<br></li>
<li>Appointing Directors of School Standards to drive up standards in every area<br></li>
<li>Capping class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds at 30 or under</li>
<li>Ensuring all young people study English and Maths to age 18</li>
</ul>
<p>It is certainly the case that <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1393172?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105986650851">post-16 education is a mess</a> and needs significant attention. Labour’s plans are for flagship Institutes of Technical Education as trail-blazers, but how they will raise the standard and status of vocational and technical education, a worthy aspiration, is unclear. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="http://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-resurrects-past-education-policies-but-will-they-work-40133">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Hilary Steedman, Senior Research Associate at London School of Economics and Political Science</strong></p>
<p>Labour’s <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf">election manifesto</a> promises four initiatives in the area of skills and apprenticeships; the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, the Apprenticeship Guarantee, the Youth Allowance, and the Technical Baccalaureate. It is not clear whether the party’s priority is to cut the benefits bill and take young people off the unemployment register, or to ensure that all young people gain the skills and experience they need to make the transition to a job with a future. Ultimately, Labour’s skills policy is a disappointing muddle. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-skills-policy-is-a-disappointing-muddle-40106">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Claudia Hupkau, Research Associate at London School of Economics and Political Science</strong></p>
<p>In its manifesto, Labour proposes a Technical Baccalaureate – but actually, this already exists. It was <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-techbacc-will-give-vocational-education-the-high-status-it-deserves">announced in 2013</a> by the Department for Education and then-Skills Minister Mathew Hancock. But rather than being a separate qualification it was designed as a measure to use in performance tables.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-skills-policy-is-a-disappointing-muddle-40106">here</a>.</p>
<h2>EU relations</h2>
<p><strong>Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, King’s College London</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">Labour manifesto</a> sets out several ambitions with regard to the EU. First, a clear preference for membership. The case the party makes is largely, though not exclusively, economic. The manifesto argues that more than three million UK jobs are “linked to trade with the European Union”. This is convincing to a point. Certainly, the figure tallies with one produced back in 2000, <a href="http://www.europarl.org.uk/resource/static/files/ukjobs.pdf">when a South Bank University report</a> estimated some 3,445,000 jobs in the UK “depend on exports to the EU”. The problem is that no one can know how many of these jobs would disappear in the event that the UK left the union. </p>
<p>The issue here is what EU buffs now refer to as “the counter factual”. What would be the alternative to membership? If Britain negotiated a deal similar to that enjoyed by Norway, then exports might continue pretty much as they are. If, however, Brexit involved exclusion from the single market, the impact on jobs, and on the economy as a whole would, according to <a href="http://ner.sagepub.com/content/226/1/F4">most economic studies</a>, be far more serious. </p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-keeps-it-vague-on-eu-reform-40105">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Health</h2>
<p><strong>Maria Goddard, Professor of Health Economics at University of York</strong></p>
<p>No party will go into the election suggesting that the NHS should receive less government funding given the increasing demands on the NHS and the size of the <a href="http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/121203_a_decade_of_austerity_summary_1.pdf">projected funding gap</a>. The challenge is how much extra is “enough” and on what will it be spent. The Labour strategy targets investment towards increasing staff numbers in order to allow more time"time to care" – in particular nurses, GPs, midwives and home-care workers. The NHS employs 1.2 million people in full-time employment and although overall staff numbers have increased in most years over the past decade, the biggest growth has been in consultants. Meanwhile GPs and nurses have seen <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-staffing-numbers">more modest growth</a>. </p>
<p>Given that recent concerns have focused on the safety implications of staffing levels, particularly <a href="http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/">in relation to hospital nurses</a>; and as the extra demand faced by accident and emergency departments has at least, in part, been <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/urgent-emergency-care/urgent-and-emergency-care-mythbusters">blamed on lack of access to GPs</a>, these plans may help improve access and quality. However, the devil will be in the detail if these investments are to pay off in the longer term.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="http://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labour-nhs-40113">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p><strong>Ian Preston, Professor of Economics at UCL</strong></p>
<p>Labour’s commitment to controlling immigration had already been made clear by its announcement as one of Labour’s <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/105262118234/launch-of-labours-second-election-pledge">five election pledges</a>. But the party’s manifesto goes further to explain the policies, and how they would be implemented. </p>
<p>The party declares that it wishes to “look outward”, while recognising “public anxiety” and the people’s need “to feel secure in the strength of our borders.” The manifesto identifies specific public concerns, such as effects on wages, public services and “our shared way of life”. Public anxiety is <a href="http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/immigration/introduction.aspx">undeniable</a>, and according to research, social concerns may be <a href="http://creamcomments.blogspot.com/2012/02/attitudes-to-immigration.html">more significant</a> than economic ones. </p>
<p>No view is advanced by Labour as to whether these concerns are well-founded: research suggests that economic concerns, for example, are not. The evidence fails to point persuasively to any adverse impact <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf">on average wages</a> or <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/comments.php">employment</a>. As regards public finances, research shows that recent immigrants both <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf">contribute more in taxes</a> than they <a href="http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk">withdraw in calls on public services</a> and provide much of the staffing for <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=13">some parts of the public sector</a>. </p>
<p>Restricting immigration might assuage public concern, but it could also fail to achieve gains in average wages, and lead to less healthy public finances.</p>
<p>Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-labours-immigration-policies-are-led-by-public-opinion-not-evidence-40109">here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40108/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Goddard receives research funding from the Department of Health and NIHR. The Centre of which she is Director receives research funding from a variety of sources. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anand Menon receives funding from the ESRC, but this article does not represent the views of the Research Councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christine Merrell receives funding from Esme Fairbairn Foundation. For the research investigating standards over time in reading and mathematics by Tymms and Merrell in 2007, which was published as part of the Cambridge Primary Review, the authors received an honorarium of £1,000, which was paid to the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudia Hupkau is part of the LSE Centre for Vocational Education Research, which receives funding from BIS. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hilary Steedman has previously received funding from government departments, leading charities and international organisations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Preston has been part of teams receiving funding from the Home Office, Migration Advisory Committee and Low Pay Commission for past research on migration. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Perraton does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Durham University received funding from the Sutton Trust to produce the Pupil Premium Toolkit. This has subsequently been developed into an online resource, the Teaching and Learning Toolkit, by the Education Endowment Foundation who provide funding to Durham University to support a research review and analysis team, led by Steve Higgins. He has also been involved in projects where Durham University has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Department for Education and the National College for Teaching & Leadership. This article does not represent the views of the research councils. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Our experts crunch the evidence on Labour’s big ticket policies.Maria Goddard, Professor of Health Economics, University of YorkAnand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, King's College LondonChristine Merrell, Reader in Education, Durham UniversityClaudia Hupkau, Research Economist/Research Co-ordinator, London School of Economics and Political ScienceHilary Steedman, Senior Research Associate, London School of Economics and Political ScienceIan Preston, Professor in the Department of Economics, UCLJonathan Perraton, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of SheffieldSteve Higgins, Professor of Education, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401132015-04-13T17:18:38Z2015-04-13T17:18:38ZManifesto Check: Labour bids to highlight key health differences<p>The <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">Labour manifesto</a> refers to the NHS as “one of our great national institutions”, and has the stated aim to “rescue our NHS”, referring to the “wrong values” that the Conservatives have put at the heart of the NHS.</p>
<p>It is not surprising therefore that the manifesto should cover issues where the values of the parties most obviously diverge, such as the appropriate role of the private sector in the NHS. However, with that exception, it is quite difficult to find very much else in the proposals that could be argued about by any other party. This reflects the difficulty in tackling the seemingly intractable problems that the NHS is experiencing.</p>
<h2>More money</h2>
<p>No party will go into the election suggesting that the NHS should receive less government funding given the increasing demands on the NHS and the size of the <a href="http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/121203_a_decade_of_austerity_summary_1.pdf">projected funding gap</a>. The challenge is how much extra is “enough” and on what will it be spent. The Labour strategy targets investment towards increasing staff numbers in order to allow more “time to care” – in particular nurses, GPs, midwives and home-care workers. The NHS employs 1.2 million full-time equivalent staff and although overall staff numbers have increased in most years over the past decade, the biggest growth has been in consultants. Meanwhile GPs and nurses have seen <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-staffing-numbers">more modest growth</a>. </p>
<p>Given that recent concerns have focused on the safety implications of staffing levels, particularly <a href="http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/">in relation to hospital nurses</a>; and as the extra demand faced by accident and emergency departments has at least, in part, been <a href="http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/urgent-emergency-care/urgent-and-emergency-care-mythbusters">blamed on lack of access to GPs</a>, these plans may help improve access and quality. However, the devil will be in the detail if these investments are to pay off in the longer term.</p>
<h2>Joined-up care</h2>
<p>Again, no party will suggest that fragmentation of services is the key to a good healthcare experience for citizens nor to providing an efficient service; hence the focus on co-ordination and integration of services across the health and social care sectors is not surprising. </p>
<p>This reflects current policy direction with a plethora of integrated schemes <a href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/transformation-fund/">introduced in the past few years</a>. Labour plans include the pooling of funds (at local level) in order to facilitate integrated care – again, already reflected in current policy such as the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-work-in-2015-to-2016">Better Care Fund</a> and personalised budgets. Judging the success of integration is not straightforward and <a href="http://hsr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/16/1355819614566832.full.pdf+html">evidence is mixed</a> especially in terms of the potential financial impact.</p>
<h2>Prevention is better than cure</h2>
<p>No-one will argue against the manifesto emphasis on prevention and public health as a means to make the NHS more sustainable in the face of increasing demand. Plans to tackle obesity include setting maximum permitted levels of sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to children. </p>
<p>This contrasts with the “fat tax” or “sugar tax” that has been adopted by some countries, although <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect">evidence varies</a> as to whether that approach is effective. A “levy on tobacco firms” is mentioned as one means of finding the extra funds for the NHS, which would be an interesting development, but no detail is provided.</p>
<h2>Public not private</h2>
<p>The manifesto states it will repeal the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted">Health and Social Care Act</a> which is viewed by some as a major route into “privatisation” of the NHS. Labour also says it will ensure the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/questions-and-answers/index_en.htm">Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Treaty</a> will not adversely affect the NHS by allowing it to be subject to free trade. On the other hand, the party is not ruling out some involvement of the private sector as it will seek to make NHS providers the “preferred providers” of services and will cap the profits that can be made by private companies providing clinical services.</p>
<p>Many of the policies are as expected – reducing the role of private finance and private companies in favour of the NHS, focusing on prevention and lifestyle issues, viewing integrated care as the future for organisation of services, investing in more front-line staff. There are however, a few things mentioned that are a little more surprising. For instance, creating a Cancer Treatments Fund for patients to have access to the latest drugs and treatments seems to be reinventing the <a href="http://www.york.ac.uk/che/news/2015/estimating-the-nice-costeffectiveness-threshold/">heavily criticised</a> Cancer Drugs Fund. </p>
<p>Around patient safety and quality, the Labour proposals suffer from being too vague. However, some could have significant implications depending on how they are implemented. For instance, making every hospital death the subject of an “appropriate level of review”, seems fine in principle but could imply substantial bureaucracy in practice. Another example is modernising the regulation of healthcare professions, which omits to mention the important issue of which professions the party is actually talking about. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2014/jul/24/healthcare-regulation-urgently-needs-overhaul">Past experience suggests</a>
that for some parts of the profession, this could take a lot longer to negotiate than even several Labour governments could manage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Goddard receives research funding from the Department of Health and NIHR. The Centre of which she is Director receives research funding from a variety of sources. The Conversation's Manifesto Checks are produced in partnership with Nesta and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. </span></em></p>Labour’s health manifesto does not rule out all NHS privatisation, despite vowing to protect service’s public status.Maria Goddard, Professor of Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401152015-04-13T15:08:24Z2015-04-13T15:08:24ZLabour manifesto: Miliband pitches fiscal responsibility<p>Labour has become the first of the three bigger parties to publish an <a href="http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/bfd62952-9c4f-3394-3d41-cf94592816d2.pdf">election manifesto</a>. </p>
<p>And while the document reiterates familiar themes, it also presents something of a departure. The emphasis is very much on demonstrating that the party would be fiscally responsible in government. </p>
<p>As Miliband unveiled his plans, I was in the highly marginal North Warwickshire constituency – his party’s number one target seat. I was surprised by the level of support for UKIP, with voters mentioning immigration as a key issue. Labour’s pledges in this area are highly unlikely to reassure voters like these. Recruiting an additional 1,000 border control staff and bringing in tighter controls on short-term student visas is just not enough.</p>
<p>The goal of this manifesto is to overcome the economic credibility gap between Labour and the Conservatives. Ed Miliband pledged to cut the deficit year after year, although it was not clear when a balanced budget would be achieved, or indeed if it would be by the end of the new parliament in 2020.</p>
<p>Every pledge in the manifesto is said to be fundable without additional borrowing. This means, for example, that Labour can only pledge an initial £2.5 billion for the NHS, even though the Conservatives are promising <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220">£8 billion</a> (even though where that money would actually come from is unclear).</p>
<p>There were also more familiar themes in Miliband’s address and the manifesto, such as looking after working people and their families and challenging the interests of the powerful and the rich.</p>
<p>Under Labour, the minimum wage would be increased to at least £8 per hour by October 2019 and <a href="https://theconversation.com/zero-hour-contracts-the-dark-side-of-flexible-labour-markets-16500">zero-hours contracts</a> would be abolished. Gas and electricity prices would be frozen until 2017. Measures would also be taken to protect tax credits.</p>
<p>This all represents a continuation of the theme that there is a cost of living crisis, that any recovery in the economy has not percolated through to those on average or below average wages. For many, any prosperity they enjoy is brittle.</p>
<p>However, it is also very much a core vote strategy – these are all policies that would appeal to traditional Labour voters. There was some attempt to appeal to voters in the south east – where voters are more traditionally Conservative. For them, Miliband offered a one-year freeze on rail fares, funded by delays in road schemes.</p>
<p>The risk with this strategy is that voters may think that all they are being offered by the two main parties are two different versions of austerity, albeit with a different sharing of the burden.</p>
<h2>Scotland decides</h2>
<p>Labour has, for some time, been struggling with the threat of the SNP in Scotland, and its manifesto may not help matters. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls has said that Scotland cannot be exempted from cuts, something that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32283497">Nicola Sturgeon</a> has been quick to pick up on.</p>
<p>It is doubtful whether the manifesto will change the balance of support between the two parties in a major way. And without a Labour recovery in Scotland, Ed Miliband may have to govern on the basis of some kind of agreement with the SNP.</p>
<p>It might be possible to get over the issue of Trident, but Labour’s determination to make cuts rests uneasily with the SNP’s commitment to increasing spending by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31377373">0.5% a year</a> in real terms.</p>
<p>The publicity surrounding the manifesto launch may well give Labour a short-term boost in the polls (following a recent poll from before the launch that put them <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/conservatives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour">six points behind</a>) but whether it will give them the kind of breakthrough that would deliver something close to an overall majority is much less certain. Both main parties are appealing to their core voters and there is relatively little movement of voters between them. It is the insurgent parties that threaten them both and are likely to shape the election result, even if Labour successfully re-brands itself as the party of fiscal responsibility.</p>
<p>Presenting the manifesto in Manchester, Ed Miliband sought to emphasise his ability to lead the country, stating “I’m ready”. The initial reaction from commentators was that his performance had been a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32288498">powerful one</a>, but he may also need to be ready to govern alongside a collection of other party leaders who also think they’re ready.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Labour has become the first of the three bigger parties to publish an election manifesto. And while the document reiterates familiar themes, it also presents something of a departure. The emphasis is very…Wyn Grant, Professor of politics, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.