Last week, four of the national parties brought their policy platforms into the light by publishing their election manifestos. In the days since, these documents have been dissected by journalists and think tanks alike for their political, policy, and fiscal implications. The Future Governance Forum is also interested in these things, but this blog – looking at the manifestos from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green parties – focuses on the implications for how government is delivered – the operating system that underpins the politics.
The Conservative Party is in a tricky position of its own making: having presided over 14 years in which deep fault lines have opened up in economy, environment, and society, the party is compelled to make the case for stability while life for the people of the UK feels anything but. The other three parties have probably won the overall case for change – but change to what? And how constrained are their plans by the state of the public finances and the lack of any ‘quick fixes’ to Britain’s glaring problems?
There are not many similarities that unite the four parties, but there are some. All four manifestos acknowledge that the UK needs significant investment, and all four acknowledge that public institutions have value in how they signal political commitment, priority, and longevity – a strong theme in FGF’s Rebuilding the Nation 01 paper. Done well, this helps to unlock private sector investment into the goals represented by those institutions – and all parties see this as important, albeit in different ways.
The manifestos also set out the party stalls on fair taxation, but what fairness looks like when it comes to tax is variable. For the Conservative Party, this is through promises of tax cuts – whereas the other three parties all address disparities between wealth and income taxes, notably by reforming Capital Gains Tax.
The next section explores the manifestos individually:
The Conservative Party
The Conservative manifesto uses the word ‘plan’ 123 times, its contents page listing 16 plans in different policy areas. The purpose here is to reinforce their argument that they have a plan and that their main opposition has none. However, for all the detail, there is little core narrative setting out a clear vision for the country.
Much of FGF’s work makes the case that politicians and policymakers should prioritise addressing the ‘how’ and not just the ‘what’ of the policies they advocate – that how you do something is as important as the change you want to make. It is striking how little explanation the Conservative manifesto offers for many of the commitments they make, often presented as lists of itemised actions with little detail of the plans behind them. For example, tax cuts are a core part of the Conservatives’ offer which they commit to funding through cuts to the welfare budget. The numbers of people who have left the labour market are rising, posing a challenge for our productivity, our economy and our prospects for growth. The promise of tax cuts are predicated on reversing these trends but any assurance of a clear, evidenced plan to accompany such a fundamental commitment is missing.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is little analysis of the state of public services – whether that’s rising waiting lists for treatment or access to a GP or dentist within the NHS, the backlog of cases in the criminal justice system or the state of council finances. Moreover, the most recent government budget assumes £18 billion worth of cuts for unprotected aspects of public spending, raising questions for whoever forms the next government of how they will square this circle.
The Conservative manifesto commits to promoting equality of opportunity, although in practice policy commitments reflect more tension in this area. Tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are stated priorities while disability benefits are bookmarked for further reductions. 2019 manifesto commitments to addressing regional inequality in the UK through ‘levelling up’ are seemingly abandoned in favour of funding a national service. The manifesto claims historic narrowing of long standing race disparities – without citing any examples and commitments. Meanwhile, it promises to halve public spending on equality, diversity and inclusion in the civil service.
Despite public trust in politicians at an all time low, reflecting the turbulence witnessed during this parliament, including at the top of political leadership, no analysis or commitments are made to raising standards in public service, in contrast to Labour.
Perhaps most bizarrely, the document contains not a single photograph of either the Prime Minister, any members of his team or any representation of the people they are making the case to serve.
The Labour Party
At the heart of Labour’s analysis of why the UK economy is languishing are what it perceives to be two key weaknesses in how government exercises power, before we even get to what it does with that power. The first of these, Labour argues, is a failure to acknowledge that the state can and should be a strategic economic player in its own right: “that markets must be shaped, not merely served”. The second is an inability to accept that a strong economy can only be built on a broad set of contributions – and crucially that means across the whole of the country.
This twin diagnosis leads Labour to take a similar approach in its manifesto to that advocated by FGF in our recent Mission Critical report: that the next government needs to lead with purpose, and govern in partnership.
Labour seeks to lead with purpose by constructing its manifesto around its five ambitious missions, and even spending time upfront in the document establishing exactly what it means by “mission-driven government”. Its determination to govern in partnership is woven throughout, from the joint working arrangements it wishes to establish with businesses, trade unions, civil society and others, to its commitment to “transfer power out of Westminster”, in particular to England’s Combined Authorities.
The party will hope that this combination of a clear purpose articulated via missions, and an openness to collaboration across sectors and layers of government, can unlock levels of economic growth that have eluded the UK in recent years. This is vital but not sufficient to deliver the bulk of the rest of Labour’s manifesto: its commitments to improve public services.
Whether in the spheres of criminal justice, health and social care, or education and skills, an incoming Labour government cannot wait for a boost to GDP growth to increase tax receipts and unlock investment in the public realm. It needs to embark on a substantial programme of reform straight away, and throughout the manifesto this recurs as a determination to break down siloes within Whitehall and beyond, to harness vast datasets and technological advances to deliver better services, and to target intervention much earlier to prevent crises from arising or escalating. These are admirable aims but will require hard work and iron determination to see through.
All of which connects to Labour’s final focus on ‘the how’ in its manifesto: the need to address what it calls the public’s “crisis of confidence in our political system’s ability to deliver any change”. Prescriptions here include reforming Parliament and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, but Keir Starmer will know that the most essential element of re-establishing trust between the government and the people it governs is delivery: a political party that can promise “change” and then actually bring it about. He has done the first part; in less than a month’s time it might be time to start making good on the second.
The Liberal Democrats
There are indications of a focus on reforming how government is delivered, not just what policies it prioritises, in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. There is alignment with the theory of mission-driven government explored in our paper Mission Critical, including a recognition that governments can be market shaping and can drive growth in a specific direction, through a commitment to an industrial strategy to tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. There is also a commitment to expanding the British Business bank focused on crowding in investment for SMEs.
There is particular ‘market shaping’ language in their commitments to net zero, including supporting business to cut emissions and utilising public procurement policy to grow the market for ‘climate friendly products.’ Skills, training, incentives and advice would help people and businesses with the transition to net zero.
According to the manifesto, the Lib Dems would decentralise decision making from Whitehall and Westminster. Ideas for public service reform centre around the language of justice, giving ‘everyone a new right to see a GP within seven days.’ With regards to equality and diversity, there is a policy commitment to bring into force Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring political parties to publish candidate diversity data.
The Green Party
The Green Party manifesto is framed around social and climate justice, and an assumption that the United Kingdom is already rich enough to deliver both if it operates in a “fairer” way. It therefore approaches its broad critique of the political system through this lens, with associated policy proposals focusing on upholding human rights, strengthening the social contract, and strengthening democracy through a new ‘Fair Politics Act’. This would include a shift to a proportional voting system for parliamentary and council elections, strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission, and repealing The Elections Act.
The Green Party is putting most of its resources into four seats – and this manifesto is likely to have been calibrated to ‘speak’ to voters living in those places. The seats are Brighton Pavillion, which it currently holds, and a further three the party deems winnable: Bristol Central, Waveney Valley, and North Herefordshire. All four seats have White British populations ranging from 77% in Bristol Central to 98% in the two rural seats, and may explain why – despite the manifesto being framed by equality and social justice – there is relatively little for example on racial inequality.
The manifesto, understandably, does not explore how The Green Party would reform central government to deliver its vision, or devolution beyond the devolved nations. It is possible that the party’s proposed Constitutional Commission would consider this. There are some smaller references to devolution, notably (as in Labour’s manifesto) allowing local authorities to take control of bus services – a policy which would extend powers currently available to Metro Mayors.
There are significant commitments on nationalisation – going beyond bringing railways back into public ownership (a position they have in common with Labour), and extending to the water companies and the ‘big five’ retail energy companies.
In contrast to the Labour Party, which is predicating much of its increased investment into public services on a return to growth, the Green Party is focusing on tax reform and a new carbon tax to fund its proposed programme for government. Alongside this, it has been explicit in its rejection of Labour’s fiscal rules, and will borrow to invest if it prevents future costs, notably on climate change.
Election 2024: How do the party manifestos measure up?
Deputy Director
Head of Policy and Programmes
Head of Policy and Research
Head of Learning and Practice
Last week, four of the national parties brought their policy platforms into the light by publishing their election manifestos. In the days since, these documents have been dissected by journalists and think tanks alike for their political, policy, and fiscal implications. The Future Governance Forum is also interested in these things, but this blog – looking at the manifestos from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green parties – focuses on the implications for how government is delivered – the operating system that underpins the politics.
The Conservative Party is in a tricky position of its own making: having presided over 14 years in which deep fault lines have opened up in economy, environment, and society, the party is compelled to make the case for stability while life for the people of the UK feels anything but. The other three parties have probably won the overall case for change – but change to what? And how constrained are their plans by the state of the public finances and the lack of any ‘quick fixes’ to Britain’s glaring problems?
There are not many similarities that unite the four parties, but there are some. All four manifestos acknowledge that the UK needs significant investment, and all four acknowledge that public institutions have value in how they signal political commitment, priority, and longevity – a strong theme in FGF’s Rebuilding the Nation 01 paper. Done well, this helps to unlock private sector investment into the goals represented by those institutions – and all parties see this as important, albeit in different ways.
The manifestos also set out the party stalls on fair taxation, but what fairness looks like when it comes to tax is variable. For the Conservative Party, this is through promises of tax cuts – whereas the other three parties all address disparities between wealth and income taxes, notably by reforming Capital Gains Tax.
The next section explores the manifestos individually:
The Conservative Party
The Conservative manifesto uses the word ‘plan’ 123 times, its contents page listing 16 plans in different policy areas. The purpose here is to reinforce their argument that they have a plan and that their main opposition has none. However, for all the detail, there is little core narrative setting out a clear vision for the country.
Much of FGF’s work makes the case that politicians and policymakers should prioritise addressing the ‘how’ and not just the ‘what’ of the policies they advocate – that how you do something is as important as the change you want to make. It is striking how little explanation the Conservative manifesto offers for many of the commitments they make, often presented as lists of itemised actions with little detail of the plans behind them. For example, tax cuts are a core part of the Conservatives’ offer which they commit to funding through cuts to the welfare budget. The numbers of people who have left the labour market are rising, posing a challenge for our productivity, our economy and our prospects for growth. The promise of tax cuts are predicated on reversing these trends but any assurance of a clear, evidenced plan to accompany such a fundamental commitment is missing.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is little analysis of the state of public services – whether that’s rising waiting lists for treatment or access to a GP or dentist within the NHS, the backlog of cases in the criminal justice system or the state of council finances. Moreover, the most recent government budget assumes £18 billion worth of cuts for unprotected aspects of public spending, raising questions for whoever forms the next government of how they will square this circle.
The Conservative manifesto commits to promoting equality of opportunity, although in practice policy commitments reflect more tension in this area. Tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are stated priorities while disability benefits are bookmarked for further reductions. 2019 manifesto commitments to addressing regional inequality in the UK through ‘levelling up’ are seemingly abandoned in favour of funding a national service. The manifesto claims historic narrowing of long standing race disparities – without citing any examples and commitments. Meanwhile, it promises to halve public spending on equality, diversity and inclusion in the civil service.
Despite public trust in politicians at an all time low, reflecting the turbulence witnessed during this parliament, including at the top of political leadership, no analysis or commitments are made to raising standards in public service, in contrast to Labour.
Perhaps most bizarrely, the document contains not a single photograph of either the Prime Minister, any members of his team or any representation of the people they are making the case to serve.
The Labour Party
At the heart of Labour’s analysis of why the UK economy is languishing are what it perceives to be two key weaknesses in how government exercises power, before we even get to what it does with that power. The first of these, Labour argues, is a failure to acknowledge that the state can and should be a strategic economic player in its own right: “that markets must be shaped, not merely served”. The second is an inability to accept that a strong economy can only be built on a broad set of contributions – and crucially that means across the whole of the country.
This twin diagnosis leads Labour to take a similar approach in its manifesto to that advocated by FGF in our recent Mission Critical report: that the next government needs to lead with purpose, and govern in partnership.
Labour seeks to lead with purpose by constructing its manifesto around its five ambitious missions, and even spending time upfront in the document establishing exactly what it means by “mission-driven government”. Its determination to govern in partnership is woven throughout, from the joint working arrangements it wishes to establish with businesses, trade unions, civil society and others, to its commitment to “transfer power out of Westminster”, in particular to England’s Combined Authorities.
The party will hope that this combination of a clear purpose articulated via missions, and an openness to collaboration across sectors and layers of government, can unlock levels of economic growth that have eluded the UK in recent years. This is vital but not sufficient to deliver the bulk of the rest of Labour’s manifesto: its commitments to improve public services.
Whether in the spheres of criminal justice, health and social care, or education and skills, an incoming Labour government cannot wait for a boost to GDP growth to increase tax receipts and unlock investment in the public realm. It needs to embark on a substantial programme of reform straight away, and throughout the manifesto this recurs as a determination to break down siloes within Whitehall and beyond, to harness vast datasets and technological advances to deliver better services, and to target intervention much earlier to prevent crises from arising or escalating. These are admirable aims but will require hard work and iron determination to see through.
All of which connects to Labour’s final focus on ‘the how’ in its manifesto: the need to address what it calls the public’s “crisis of confidence in our political system’s ability to deliver any change”. Prescriptions here include reforming Parliament and establishing a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, but Keir Starmer will know that the most essential element of re-establishing trust between the government and the people it governs is delivery: a political party that can promise “change” and then actually bring it about. He has done the first part; in less than a month’s time it might be time to start making good on the second.
The Liberal Democrats
There are indications of a focus on reforming how government is delivered, not just what policies it prioritises, in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. There is alignment with the theory of mission-driven government explored in our paper Mission Critical, including a recognition that governments can be market shaping and can drive growth in a specific direction, through a commitment to an industrial strategy to tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. There is also a commitment to expanding the British Business bank focused on crowding in investment for SMEs.
There is particular ‘market shaping’ language in their commitments to net zero, including supporting business to cut emissions and utilising public procurement policy to grow the market for ‘climate friendly products.’ Skills, training, incentives and advice would help people and businesses with the transition to net zero.
According to the manifesto, the Lib Dems would decentralise decision making from Whitehall and Westminster. Ideas for public service reform centre around the language of justice, giving ‘everyone a new right to see a GP within seven days.’ With regards to equality and diversity, there is a policy commitment to bring into force Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring political parties to publish candidate diversity data.
The Green Party
The Green Party manifesto is framed around social and climate justice, and an assumption that the United Kingdom is already rich enough to deliver both if it operates in a “fairer” way. It therefore approaches its broad critique of the political system through this lens, with associated policy proposals focusing on upholding human rights, strengthening the social contract, and strengthening democracy through a new ‘Fair Politics Act’. This would include a shift to a proportional voting system for parliamentary and council elections, strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission, and repealing The Elections Act.
The Green Party is putting most of its resources into four seats – and this manifesto is likely to have been calibrated to ‘speak’ to voters living in those places. The seats are Brighton Pavillion, which it currently holds, and a further three the party deems winnable: Bristol Central, Waveney Valley, and North Herefordshire. All four seats have White British populations ranging from 77% in Bristol Central to 98% in the two rural seats, and may explain why – despite the manifesto being framed by equality and social justice – there is relatively little for example on racial inequality.
The manifesto, understandably, does not explore how The Green Party would reform central government to deliver its vision, or devolution beyond the devolved nations. It is possible that the party’s proposed Constitutional Commission would consider this. There are some smaller references to devolution, notably (as in Labour’s manifesto) allowing local authorities to take control of bus services – a policy which would extend powers currently available to Metro Mayors.
There are significant commitments on nationalisation – going beyond bringing railways back into public ownership (a position they have in common with Labour), and extending to the water companies and the ‘big five’ retail energy companies.
In contrast to the Labour Party, which is predicating much of its increased investment into public services on a return to growth, the Green Party is focusing on tax reform and a new carbon tax to fund its proposed programme for government. Alongside this, it has been explicit in its rejection of Labour’s fiscal rules, and will borrow to invest if it prevents future costs, notably on climate change.
You might also be interested in
No Stone Unturned: the hunt for regional growth
Time to change the relationship between people and the state
FGF’s new Business Panel brings business leaders and policymakers together to tackle the country’s big challenges
How design capabilities could help the government deliver their national missions