During election campaigns, parties spend a lot of time refining their manifestos. Some are long and detailed, some very short and vague. Commentators try to assess how voters are responding to the promises. But most voters never read a manifesto, and have only a hazy notion of what was in them. So do they matter, and what will really shape voters’ decisions when the general election comes?
Do people pay attention?
The Labour manifesto in 2017 was unusual. The draft manifesto was ‘leaked’ and as a result attracted more press and public attention than usual. People like feeling that they have access to a secret, and some commentators attributed the surge in Labour support to that leak. By contrast, discussion of their 2019 manifesto focused on whether or not it contained an unrealistically long list of policies, though whether most voters could identify many of those is moot.
In 2019, the Conservatives focused almost entirely on a single policy: ‘Get Brexit done’. What that meant is unclear, and after months of Parliamentary deadlock, many people’s focus was probably as much on ‘done’, as on ‘Brexit’. Occasionally a broken promise haunts a party, as with the Liberal Democrat promise to abolish tuition fees in the 2010 campaign.
Key signals, not catalogues
But usually, parties focus campaigning on a very few key issues. In retrospect, most of the achievements of the 1997 Labour government were not mentioned in the campaign, which focused heavily on five very specific ‘pledges’
- Cut class sizes
- Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders
- Cut NHS waiting lists.
- Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work
- No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible
But there was no mention of some major policies, like giving independence to the Bank of England, or reducing child poverty. Nor was there an indication of which of these was most important if, and when, difficult decisions have to be made (as they certainly will this year).
Policies as signals, not promises?
So despite the debates of the activists, perhaps voters take these policy proposals, not as promises, or priorities, but as an indication of the broad direction that a party would take in government. This appears to be borne out by a recent poll from BMG, which asked not only how people would vote if an election was held now, but also whether they understand the parties’ policies.
On the voting question, the results were in line with most other current polls in predicting a Labour lead of around 18 points. But on the question of policies the answers might seem surprising. They asked “Imagine Labour under leadership of Keir Starmer were to win power at the next general election. How clear or unclear would you say their policies and plans are?” 42% chose ‘unclear’ against 39% ‘clear’, with 19% choosing ‘don’t know’.
Asked how clear Labour’s policies are on specific issues, more people chose ‘unclear’ than ‘clear’. So they overwhelmingly intend to vote Labour, despite not knowing what its policies are on the economy, immigration, Brexit, pensions or education. Interestingly, there is a clear age pattern to responses, with 18–34 year olds choosing ‘clear’ by 53% / 23%, while the 55+ group chose ‘unclear’ by a similar proportion, 59% / 29%.
A question of trust
So, if they don’t know what the policies are, what are people voting for? The answer seems to be trust. BMG asked how far the parties are trusted on a range of issues, and on every one Labour had a clear lead. On healthcare, welfare and housing, their lead over the Conservatives was over 20%. The chart shows how many people chose each party, on the ten issues ranked as most important overall.
They are also voting on leadership. The survey shows Starmer leading Sunak on most aspects of leadership, most notably on ‘understanding the needs of ordinary people’, where he leads by 28%. He also leads on ‘having strong principles’, ‘being a good speaker’, and ‘being decisive’, but mainly, in those cases, because Sunak performs so badly.
A further issue is competence. Asked whether a party is ready for government, 50% of people say Labour is ready, although 39% disagree. However, the ‘disagree’ figure has risen since BMG asked the same questions last October. This may reflect the greater media attention to Labour, as the likelihood of a Labour government has risen.
So what are policy promises for? The activists continue to be excited by them, and continue to lobby for particular causes to be included in the manifesto. It seems quite likely that they will be disappointed. It looks as if, for most voters, policies are signals of direction, rather than promises of specifics. This is consistent with Rachel Reeves’s endlessly repeated mantra, that most decisions can only be made when Labour is in power and can ‘see the books’.
‘Events, dear boy, events’
Many voters probably recognise that events overtake governments: things that seemed possible before an election prove difficult, and new issues which nobody had considered, suddenly become all-consuming. Looking back at the 1997 Labour manifesto, it is clear that those very specific plans were a signal of direction rather than a promised programme. The major changes to childcare, early years education and child poverty were implied in the three-word promise on class sizes, but not at the centre of the campaign.
So, there are things that many of our readers would like to see a Labour government achieve in power, and some probably will be achieved. But we won’t see most of them in the campaign, and perhaps not in the manifesto. At the moment it looks as if people are saying, “We think these people look competent and trustworthy; they understand ordinary people’s problems and will try to make things better, in whatever ways are possible, given the constraints.” They do not expect to be offered specific promises.
And they also seem to be saying that, after 14 years of the present government, it’s time for a change.
