Play all audios:
Most people have never read a political party manifesto in their life. You might expect a creedal statement, a summary and explanation of a party’s core beliefs. “We believe in transnational
corporate capital, maker of wealth and tax avoidance. We believe in one holy, global, market economy, the forgiveness of greed, and the resurrection of one-nation Toryism…” or something
like that. Instead, the 2019 manifestos read like a pair of hopeful wedding gift lists, with a hint of those New Year Resolutions you make as an adolescent, despite knowing full well they’ll
be abandoned almost immediately. Labour’s manifesto, _It’s Time for Real Change_, is 107 pages, while the Conservative offering _Get Brexit Done_. _Unleash Britain’s Potential_ is a mere 64
pages. Note the two imperative verbs in the latter. It says “strong leadership”. In case you missed this point, it contains eight pictures of Johnson, hair carefully tousled, plus one
picture of workers with a banner reading “We love Boris”. A picture of the bashful, and much bashed, Corbyn appears but once in the Labour manifesto. Perhaps the real change is needed at the
top of the Labour Party. Much has been said of the party’s domestic spending promises, but what of their overseas commitments? The Conservative Party’s presentation, “Britain in the World”
is, as might be expected, defence and security heavy. But it does include the commendable pledge “to seek to protect those persecuted for their faith and implement the Truro Review
recommendations”. (The review, on religious freedom was undertaken by the Anglican Bishop of Truro.) The Labour manifesto’s excellent “A New Internationalism” section bravely opts for Animal
Rights with a charming badger photograph. So much for farmers’ votes. They are commendably strong on human rights, international solidarity and social justice, as well as the role of
diplomacy. By far the most puzzling item in the Labour manifesto’s internationalism section is to be found among its three “pledges”. The first of these is the promise to introduce a
War-Powers Act, which will mean military action cannot be taken without parliamentary approval. Fair enough. The third is an important FCO-friendly £400 million to boost our diplomatic
capacity, which again is uncontroversial. But the second reads as follows: “Conduct an audit of the impact of Britain’s colonial legacy to understand our contribution to the dynamics of
violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule.” There are a number of possible explanations for this odd priority. The first would be the Manifesto drafters
have read their Orwell. “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past”. Another would be that the idealistic student masses who flooded into
the party have run out of statues of bad people to pull down, or university lecturers with the wrong views about colonialism to ban. Might the National Executive simply attend a course on
colonial history in our universities? What more do we need to understand, for example, about the impact of torturing Mau-Mau suspects in Kenya or, say, the Balfour Declaration’s contribution
“to the dynamics of violence and insecurity” in the Middle East? Do they really suppose all _post_-colonial ills can be placed at the door of British imperialism? Party manifestos are worth
reading in full. They tell you a lot about what each party’s leadership thinks the public wants to hear. And, in addition, they are an opportunity to scrutinise a political party’s world
view. Very useful for citizens, manifestos provide a check-list of aspirations and promises which they can later call to account. The current Labour and Conservative manifestos prompt two
thoughts: first, the leadership of the Labour Party has completely abandoned the political possibilities of the Blair-Brown years. They have forgotten that redistribution of wealth and
stability in society, increasing salaries and building better public services, can only be achieved from a broad base of popular support. Because they haven’t established a base outside the
party’s membership they won’t win the next election. The second thought is that the Conservative manifesto gives no real way of knowing if the Tories, if they come back to power on 13
December with a workable majority, will tilt back to a more one-nation stance, or surrender to its new-found extremism. The clear and present danger is that, no matter who wins the election,
the extremists will win the day.