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 Images.
Show Hide image

Europe's elections show why liberals should avoid fatalism

France, Germany and the Netherlands suggest there is nothing inevitable about the right's advance.

Humans are unavoidably pattern-seeking creatures. We give meaning to disparate events where little or none may exist. So it is with Brexit and Donald Trump. The proximity of these results led to declarations of liberalism's demise. After decades of progress, the tide was said to have unavoidably turned.

Every election is now treated as another round in the great duel between libralism and populism. In the Netherlands, the perennial nativist Geert Wilders was gifted outsize attention in the belief that he could surf the Brexit-Trump wave to victory. Yet far from triumphing, the Freedom Party finished a distant second, increasing its seats total to 20 (four fewer than in 2010). Wilders' defeat was always more likely than not (and he would have been unable to form a government) but global events gifted him an aura of invincibility.

In France, for several years, Marine Le Pen has been likely to make the final round of the next presidential election. But it was only after Brexit and Trump's election that she was widely seen as a potential victor. As in 2002, the front républicain is likely to defeat the Front National. The winner, however, will not be a conservative but a liberal. According to the post-Trump narrative, Emmanuel Macron's rise should have been impossible. But his surge (albeit one that has left him tied with Le Pen in the first round) suggests liberalism is in better health than suggested.

In Germany, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland was said to be remorselessly advancing, politics is returning to traditional two-party combat. The election of Martin Schulz has transformed the SPD's fortunes to the point where it could form the next government. As some Labour MPs resign themselves to perpeutal opposition, they could be forgiven for noting what a difference a new leader can make.

2016 will be forever remembered as the year of Brexit and Trump. Yet both events could conceivably have happened in liberalism's supposed heyday. The UK has long been the EU's most reluctant member and, having not joined the euro or the Schengen Zone, already had one foot outside the door. In the US, the conditions for the election of a Trump-like figure have been in place for decades. For all this, Leave only narrowly won and Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than her opponent. Liberalism is neither as weak as it is now thought, nor as strong as it was once thought.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.