The Labour Party Manifesto

The launching of the current General Election in the UK has not been particularly inspiring, either in terms of the type of campaign that, thus far, the major parties have engaged in, or in terms of the quality of coverage provided by the mainstream media. Whilst it is hardly the principal point of this blog to comment in detail on British politics I have decided that it is worth while placing on record responses to the manifestoes of the three main parties indicating both the central areas each one addresses and some signal points made within them, not least in terms of the education policies offered and the type of foreign policy advocated, but also, a general sense of the idea of the party that is conveyed by the manifesto. 


The manifesto of the Labour Party is different from that of the two other main parties as it provides a defence of the record of the party in government in addition to indicating priorities for the period to come. There are 10 specific areas covered in the manifesto: growth, living standards, education, health, crime and immigration, families and older people, communities and creative Britain, Green recovery, democratic reform and a global future. After laying out the responses to these specific areas the document concludes with a list of the top 50 objectives that have been discussed within it, reiterating them.


The first point to notice, one that is hardly surprising in the current economic climate, is the opening stress on the economy. Here, in a form that is reminiscent of the days of Tony Blair, all the talk is of "tough choices" indicating how robust the party will be in dealing with matters that others would, naturally, just shirk. Looking beyond this point the emphasis in fact indicates that Labour would basically seek greater value for money from public services and is going to cut the majority of them. Additionally all those working in the public sector will have an effective pay freeze for at least 2 years, national assets will be sold off, there will be a raft of tax increases (albeit mainly directed only at the very wealthy) and there will be severe pressure placed on those on benefits to find work.


In relation to the banks, Labour pledges that new regulations will be put in place, albeit ones that will largely be administered by entities such as the Financial Services Authority which proved singularly poor at managing matters in the past. The first mention of universities in the manifesto occurs in the context of discussion of the economy with emphasis on the creation of innovation and capital funds to try and ensure that universities participate more in wealth-creation. Whilst in itself this is a reasonable enough notion it does tend to reinforce the general drift towards diminishment of the humanities in favour of emphasis on science and technology.


Labour indicates a welcome commitment to building up infrastructure, including in the area of transport and rail travel. Similarly, the commitment to the minimum wage being increased in line with earnings is a good one, as is the extension of responsibilities of the Low Pay Commission. Labour is, however, committed to finding ways to continue the expansion of home ownership, a somewhat strange obsession in a climate where an increase in private rented accommodation would make more sense for a lot of people.


Education policy is heavily skewed towards schools with very little detail on universities. One specific point that does come out is that Labour has dropped the 50% target for young people in higher education in favour of a new objective, one whereby 75% of people, by the age of 30, will have gone on to higher education or completed an advanced apprenticeship or technician training. This down-grading of the specific importance of higher education is followed by a commitment to follow the recommendations of a review body the government has set up on student finance, widely expected to recommend increases in student fees. Since this will hardly be likely to increase the allure of higher education for those from lower income backgrounds it is fairly safe to say that Labour has decidedly little interest in higher education. The increases anticipated in student intake in the sector are for two-year Foundation degrees and applied study so, again, downgrading of full-time higher education and little interest in anything from humanities or the social sciences.


On international affairs the manifesto makes a great deal of commitment to troop levels in Afghanistan with Strategic Defence Reviews and a National Safety Strategy following on. Clearly foreign policy is mainly thought of in terms of combatting terrorism though the party does indicate it is committed to the enlargement of the European Union. Commitment is made to the creation of a Palestinian state but, since this objective has been announced regularly within the last few years, it merits scepticism how vigorously a Labour government would push for this. A great deal is added in terms of an anti-poverty global agenda but a number of the other points mentioned are very vaguely worded. The claim that the UN should be subjected to radical reform is one that is hard to argue with but it is not clearly substantiated what it would mean. 


The general emphasis of the manifesto does not create the impression of a renewed party that is going, if re-elected, to make things really different. The general agenda of the manifesto is imbued with the same spirit as the government of the last few years so one's attitude towards the manifesto is likely to be coloured by how one views the achievements of those years. In some areas it is as noticeable what is not said as what is said. So, in education policy, in line with the general lack of attention given to universities, there is no mention of the REF, no discussion of the "impact" agenda and no account given of plans for national research strategies outside an overall view of thinking everything comes down to stressing the STEM subjects. Similarly, aside from indicating continued commitment to the EU, there is little in the foreign policy that indicates any specific thought of how to develop the UK's standing in the world.


This manifesto seems a somewhat tired document that lacks any clear overarching theme. The general idea is clearly that of helping out those on low-incomes though this is coupled with a stick directed towards the long-term unemployed. But little is said about the nature of the cuts that will come when those "tough choices" are made.

International Relations in the First Decade of the 21st Century

As we approach the completion of the first decade of this century it is worth looking at what it brought us in terms of developments in international relations. There have been three major stories during this decade, the first concerning the relationship between the US and the Middle East, the second the expansion of the European Union and the third the rise of China and India.

Taking these topics in turn the US's role in world affairs has been subject to considerable controversy, particularly around the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but more generally with regard to policies that concern Israel and Palestine. The wars in the area have been consistently framed, not least by critics of the US, in relation to the continued failure of any momentum towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In some respects the Israeli policies in this decade have been surprising since Ariel Sharon, whose name was hardly a synonym for peace, proclaimed a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the occupied territories, a withdrawal that, in its turn, precipitated a split within the Palestinians that led to a resurgence of support for Hamas. Israel also launched a war in the Lebanon in response to shelling from Hezbollah, a war that, at the time, was widely regarded as ending in a loss for the Israelis but which has produced the outcome they desired (cessation of the shelling). There have been no substantive moves towards peace with either the Palestinians or any of their neighbours during this decade.

It is true that the failure of movements towards peace by the Israelis is something that has been underpinned by a continued record of pretty uncritical support from the US. The majority of the decade saw the US governed by President Bush Jr and, despite being the first President to unequivocally state support for a Palestinian state, Bush effectively did nothing to bolster the Palestinian leadership and has to be regarded as at fault for the rise of Hamas. Bush also launched the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Obama is now left with. The war in Iraq, whatever else one might say about it, was handled catastrophically badly with the immediate aftermath of the invasion handled in a lamentably poor way. The Obama administration unfortunately has as little appetite for nation-building as the Bush one did with the result that the long-term prospects for Afghanistan are far from rosy. Obama has noted the need for integrated policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, something evident given the continued links between the Pakistani government and many of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The failure, however, to motivate a responsible civil society in Pakistan to take seriously the notion that other factors than India may be of concern in the area continues to resound as a serious failure in Western policy.

The wider Middle East remains an area that is fraught with instability. The regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that have been taken to be allies of the US both have severe faults. Saudi Arabia was widely understood to be an incubator for Al-Qaeda and the conditions that permitted this have scarcely been reformed. Similarly, the major opposition force in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, a force that has emerged as such a force in lieu of any serious secular movement, the latter having all suffered repression. Since these are the countries to which Western countries look when thinking of allies in the region it is hardly surprising that the rest of the region looks bleak. From Algeria to Syria there is a general pattern of dictatorship, repression, human rights abuse and failure of serious development.

By contrast the European Union's expansion is a hopeful sign at least in the sense that it has helped to motivate the countries of Eastern Europe to set about economic and social developments that advance the area in general. The incorporation of these countries is hopeful for the security and prosperity of all the people of Europe with countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, all set to be able to take advantage of these new opportunities. Other countries have, however, fared less well with Romania and Bulgaria still seeming fixed in corruption and having only dubiously democratic institutions. The EU generally seems set on rejecting Turkey, a mistake whose proportions will take a long time measuring since this will ensure that Turkey will seek allies elsewhere and be more likely to move away from the path of attempted reconciliation of Islam and modernity that the AKP promised. The EU generally also appears singularly unsuited at developing as a serious force in world politics, riven as it is by national disputes and having at its heart institutions that have little normative validity.

The rise of China and India are phenomena of many sides. China's rise is generally understood to be more considerable than that of India and during the course of this year reached such an extent that talk of a G2 in the world began to be generally discussed. The economic strides made by China should not conceal the fact that it is the largest dictatorship in the world, governed by a party that has no commitment to even transition towards democratic institutions and which has only a very partial commitment to even the outline of the idea of the rule of law. Due to this the economic development in China remains unstable as it is riven by regional and national disputes that, combined with the demands of a newly emergent civil society, ensure that its rulers have no appetite for looking outwards at the world. China's engagement in Africa, amongst other places, has at present no enlightened element to it, supporting as it does, despotisms and local rulers.

India's rise, whilst less dramatic than that of China, is nonetheless, in its way, more encouraging. India, despite facing immense problems, is a society with constitutional elements and a basic commitment to working with moves towards openness. India still faces a hostile and suspicious Pakistan however, something reinforced by India's moves into Afghanistan. India also will have to face difficult questions as it balances its relations with the US with those it will have to cope with in relation to Russia and, indeed, China. Leadership in India is perhaps more sorely needed than anywhere in the world, except, naturally, in the US.

Less central than any of these trends but not something that can be ignored is the role of Russia. Since Putin replaced Yeltsin as President the basic trajectory of the country has been back towards dictatorial measures and the construction of an effective corporatist state with large areas of economic life managed either by the state directly or via arrangements with gangster elements. Effectively this makes Russia a very frightening place internally and helps to produce an unpredictable foreign policy, as, for example, when this year it emerged as effectively a cheer-leader for the repressive regime in Iran. The difficulty of engagement with Russia is pronounced since the governing class there is imbued with cynicism and is inherently turned towards violent solutions to its problems as was witnessed with the war in Georgia last year. As with the Chinese, the Russians have little interest in engaging in any normatively serious way with world affairs ensuring that they play a role of destabilisation, something serious in view of their holdings of energy supplies. In other respects the Russians have however entered a phase of continued decline and are far less likely to have serious impact on world affairs than any of the other groups mentioned here.

A word on one particularly significant event this year: the upsurge of protest in Iran. Given that the Iranian regime is threatening with regard to development of nuclear power and its links with the newly powerful Shiite tendencies in Iraq, the emergence of serious opposition opens out the prospect for a movement that could re-shape the Middle East. Watching developments there will continue to be very important.

These trends when put together suggest a very difficult decade ahead, one in which there will constantly be posed as a vital matter how the development of China and India will effect world affairs. Those concerned with international analysis should be as engaged with these countries and their influence as with that of the US, something that requires ceasing to always regard the US as either the most important benevolent or maleficent force and taking a more general view of what and how the forces that can bring openness and enlightenment can be supported in the years to come.