The Tories' hardline 2015 manifesto is taking shape

Conservative ministers have been trailing right-wing policies for post-coalition life.

We've heard plenty about the Lib Dems' "differentiation strategy" in the last year, but surprisingly few have noted the Conservatives' equivalent. On Europe, welfare, human rights law and employment regulation, Tory ministers now routinely say what a Conservative government would do differently to the coalition. At last night's meeting of the 1922 Committee, David Cameron promised his MPs that the party would go into the next election "with a clear Eurosceptic position": expect the 2015 Conservative manifesto to include a commitment to hold an EU referendum (likely offering voters a choice between looser membership and withdrawal). Below, I've compiled a list of other Tory-pleasing policies set to make an appearance.

Even deeper and harsher welfare cuts

George Osborne wanted to announce £10bn of welfare cuts in the Autumn Statement but the Lib Dems limited him to £3.8bn. Expect a promise of deeper cuts to appear in the manifesto.

It's also likely that Tory welfare proposals blocked by Nick Clegg's party, such as the abolition of housing benefit for the under-25s and the restriction of child benefit for families with more than two children, will feature. Other policies trailed by David Cameron in his welfare speech in the summer included:

- Preventing teenagers from claiming benefits as soon as they leave school.

- Paying benefits in kind (like free school meals), rather than in cash.

- Reducing benefit levels for the long-term unemployed.

- A lower housing benefit cap. Cameron said that the current limit of £20,000 was still too high. 

Some or all of those could appear in the manifesto.

For-profit free schools

Early on in the coalition's life, Nick Clegg made it clear that he would veto any move to introduce for-profit free schools, viewed by some Tories as the key to transforming the education system. But when he appeared before the Leveson inquiry, Michael Gove indicated that they could be established under a Conservative majority government.

The Education Secretary remarked that unlike some of his coalition colleagues, "who are very sceptical of the benefits of profit", he had an "open mind", adding: "I believe that it may be the case that we can augment the quality of state education by extending the range of people involved in its provision."

Withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights

The Conservatives have become increasingly hostile towards the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has prevented the deportation of Abu Qatada and forced the government to consider extending voting rights to some prisoners, but Lib Dem obstructionism has prevented reform. The commission set up to examine the proposed British Bill of Rights, split as it was between Cameron and Clegg nominees, failed to reach agreement when it published its report this week.

But in an article for the Daily Telegraph, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wrote: "I will also be looking clearly towards the next election, and starting work on ensuring that we have a real plan for change then as well." Rather than merely replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, which would still allow UK citizens to petition the ECHR, it's increasingly likely that the Tories will promise to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the court and leave the European Convention on Human Rights altogether (a position recently supported by former justice minister Nick Herbert). Such a move would require David Cameron to replace Attorney General Dominic Grieve, an avowed defender of the ECHR, but a post-election reshuffle could take care of that.

Hire-and-fire employment laws

Vince Cable ensured that a Tory proposal to allow employers to fire workers at will (contained in the now-infamous report by Conservative donor Adrian Beecroft) didn't become law, but Downing Street made it clear that it approved of the plan and it is likely to feature in the party's election offering.

David Cameron and George Osborne are already dropping hints about what the Conservatives' 2015 election manifesto will look like. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

What are the consequences of Brexit for the refugee crisis?

Politicians neglected the refugee crisis whilst campaigning – but they shouldn't now concede to the darker undertones of the debate.

In the chaotic aftermath of Brexit, the refugee crisis seems like a distant memory. Yet not even a year has passed since the body of a young Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach, shocking the world.

When campaigning for the EU referendum began, politicians neglected the crisis. Not because the situation had ameliorated, but because the issue had become strategically toxic. Nigel Farage's infamous poster aside, the Leave side preferred scare stories about economic migrants rather than refugees; the Remain side because the refugee crisis, more than anything else since its inception, highlighted the fragility of the ideals that underpin the European Union.

Many of the main issues aired in the course of the referendum debate were related to the refugee crisis, regardless of how little it impacted on them in reality; immigration, strain on public services, national identity. The refugee crisis became a proxy issue; implied, but not addressed, for fear of detrimental impact in the polls.

However, in his repugnant posters (it should be stressed, nothing to do with Leave campaign itself), Nigel Farage made explicit what he thought posed the greatest threat to the UK. Rightly, the posters have been condemned by both sides of the referendum debate, but the underlying suspicion of refugees it reflects has concerned many organisations.Their concern has only been exacerbated by the result of the referendum. The spike in hate crime compounds their fears.

Paul Dillane, head of UKLGIG, a charity that supports LGBTI asylum seekers to the UK, expressed unease at the reaction of his clients: “The asylum seekers I work with do not understand the decision that has been made – they feel vulnerable, they feel unwelcome. Yes the law hasn’t changed, and if they’re at risk of persecution, they will be protected. But they don’t feel like that now.”

Despite the troubling situation, the result of the referendum changes little when it comes to refugee law. “Refugee policy is shaped in London, not in Brussels”, said Stephen Hale, Chief Executive of Refugees Action. “The decision about how well we support refugees in terms of integration is a matter for the UK, not Brussels. The number of Syrian refugees we choose to resettle is a matter for the UK, not Brussels.”

Although the law may not have changed, from a diplomatic or political perspective, the same cannot be said. This does have the power to negatively impact legislation. Post-Brexit reaction in France surrounding the Touquet Treaty typifies this.

The Touquet Treaty, reached between the UK and France in 2003, permits each country to carry out passport checks on the other countries’ soil. It is what, according to French politicians in Calais, has accelerated the growth of the "Jungle", which currently accommodates close to 5,000 refugees.

Because the agreement was signed outside the auspices of the European Union, Brexit does not affect its legal legitimacy. However, for France, EU membership was crucial to the nature of the agreement. Speaking earlier this year, Harlem Desir, French Secretary of State for European Affairs, said the Touquet Treaty is “a bilaterial agreement. So, there will be no blackmail, nor threat, but it’s true that we cooperate more easily in both being members of the EU.”

Natacha Bouchart, mayor of Calais and a long-time critic of the treaty, has been vocal in her demands for legislative change since the result. Speaking to French broadcaster BGM TV, she said: “The British must take on the consequences of their choice. We are in a strong position to push, to press this request for a review and we are asking the President to bring his weight to the issue.” Some have adopted the slogan of the Leave campaign, telling them to now “take back control of your borders.”

Modification of the Touquet Treaty was branded part of ‘Project Fear’ by the Leave campaign. Because of this, change – if indeed it does happen – needs to be handled carefully by both the British and French governments.

The reaction of Natacha Bouchart is already a worrying sign for refugees. Firstly, it perpetuates the toxic narrative that casts refugees as an inconvenience. And secondly, any souring of relations between the UK and France over Brexit and the Touquet Treaty only increases the likelihood of refugees being used as political bargaining chips in the broader EU crisis over Schengen.

A divided government and disintegrating opposition do little to aid the situation. Furthermore, come October, how likely is a Brexit Tory cabinet – governing off the back of a manifesto predicated on reducing immigration – to extend the support networks offered to refugees? Even before the referendum, Theresa May, a supporter of the Remain campaign, said that Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, replacing it with the more questionable Bill of Rights.

Uncertainty of any kind is the most immediate danger to refugees. “Everyone is talking about it,” said Clare Mosesly, founder of Care4Calais. “But opinions on the impact are divided, which is creating yet more uncertainty.” Refugees, unsure whether Brexit will lead to increased fortification of the border, are prone to take ever more dangerous risks to reach the UK. Even economic uncertainty, seemingly distinct from issues such as the refugee crisis or immigration, has a negative impact. “The thing that worries me about a fragile economy”, said Paul Dillane, “is that when a country’s economy suffers, minorities suffer as well. Tolerance and inclusivity are undermined.”

The government must stress that the welcoming principles and legislation Britain had prior to Brexit remain in place. Andrej Mahecic, from the UNHCR, said “we will continue to rely on the UK’s strong support for humanitarian responses to refugee crises. Our work with the government on the UK’s asylum system and refugee resettlement schemes continues.”

The will from NGOs is there. The political will is less assured. In the aftermath of Brexit, the government must not concede to the darker side of the referendum debate.