A Labour Party worker canvasses for votes in Battersea on January 31, 2015. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour's manifesto: who's writing it and what happens next

There is concern within the party at the failure to agree a date for the crucial Clause V meeting. 

In advance of the start of the short campaign on 30 March, all parties are working on completing their election manifestos. The Conservatives', overseen by Jo Johnson MP (Boris's younger brother), is said to be nearly finished, while David Laws is refining the Lib Dems'. Ukip, meanwhile, recently replaced its manifesto chief Tim Aker with Suzanne Evans after he failed to meet an agreed deadline. 

What of Labour? Unlike in 2010, when its manifesto was written by Ed Miliband, the party has not publicly announced an official author. But I can reveal the key figures involved in the document. The text is being written by academic Jonathan Rutherford, an adviser to Jon Cruddas, and Marc Stears, Miliband's chief speechwriter and a friend from his Oxford days. The three politicians at the heart of the process are Jon Cruddas, the head of the party's policy review, Angela Eagle, who is leading internal consultation, and Jon Trickett, who is leading external consultation. Torsten Bell, Labour's director of policy and rebuttal, is handling the technical policy detail. 

As well as the usual debate over which policies make the cut, one issue that remains to be resolved is when the party will hold its Clause V meeting: the event at which the NEC, the shadow cabinet and other stakeholders agree the contents of the manifesto (one source described it to me as "a parliament of Labour"). The meeting is usually held within 72 hours of a general election being called, but the innovation of a fixed-term parliament means the election date (7 May) has long been known.

Despite this, a date has yet to be agreed for the party to meet. There is fear among some that this reflects a desire for the centre to maintain maximum control over the process, making it easier to exclude radical proposals. Were a date to be agreed now, the trade unions and others would, in the words of one source, know the point at which to "pile in". There is concern that measures such as worker representation on remuneration committees have yet to be confirmed as final policy. How this argument is resolved could yet determine whether Labour's manifesto is as "radical" as billed. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Land Registry sale puts a quick buck before common sense

Without a publicly-owned Land Registry, property scandals would be much harder to uncover.

Britain’s family silver is all but gone. Sale after sale since the 1970s has stripped the cupboards bare: our only assets remaining are those either deemed to be worth next to nothing, or significantly contribute to the Treasury’s coffers.

A perfect example of the latter is the Land Registry, which ensures we’re able to seamlessly buy and sell property.

This week we learned that London’s St Georges Wharf tower is both underoccupied and largely owned offshore  - an embodiment of the UK’s current housing crisis. Without a publicly-owned Land Registry, this sort of scandal would be much harder to uncover.

On top of its vital public function, it makes the Treasury money: a not-insignificant £36.7m profit in 2014/15.

And yet the government is trying to push through the sale of this valuable asset, closing a consultation on its proposal this week.

As recently as 2014 its sale was blocked by then business secretary Vince Cable. But this time Sajid Javid’s support for private markets means any opposition must come from elsewhere.

And luckily it has: a petition has gathered over 300,000 signatures online and a number of organisations have come out publically against the sale. Voices from the Competition and Markets Authority to the Law Society, as well as unions, We Own It, and my organisation the New Economics Foundation are all united.

What’s united us? A strong and clear case that the sale of the Land Registry makes no sense.

It makes a steady profit and has large cash reserves. It has a dedicated workforce that are modernising the organisation and becoming more efficient, cutting fees by 50 per cent while still delivering a healthy profit. It’s already made efforts to make more data publically available and digitize the physical titles.

Selling it would make a quick buck. But our latest report for We Own It showed that the government would be losing money in just 25 years, based on professional valuations and analysis of past profitability.

And this privatisation is different to past ones, such as British Airways or Telecoms giants BT and Cable and Wireless. Using the Land Registry is not like using a normal service: you can’t choose which Land Registry to use, you use the one and only and pay the list price every time that any title to a property is transacted.

So the Land Registry is a natural monopoly and, as goes the Competition and Market Authority’s main argument, these kinds of services should be publically owned. Handing a monopoly over to a private company in search of profit risks harming consumers – the new owners may simply charge a higher price for the service, or in this case put the data, the Land Registry’s most valuable asset, behind a paywall.

The Law Society says that the Land Registry plays a central role in ensuring property rights in England and Wales, and so we need to ensure that it maintains its integrity and is free from any conflict of interest.

Recent surveys have shown that levels of satisfaction with the service are extremely high. But many of the professional bodies representing those who rely on it, such as the Law Society and estate agents, are extremely sceptical as to whether this trust could be maintained if the institution is sold off.

A sale would be symbolic of the ideological nature of the proposal. Looked at from every angle the sale makes no sense – unless you believe that the state shouldn’t own anything. Seen through this prism and the eyes of those in the Treasury, all the Land Registry amounts to is £1bn that could be used to help close the £72bn deficit before the next election.

In reality it’s worth so much more. It should stay free, open and publically owned.

Duncan McCann is a researcher at the New Economics Foundation