This post is the seventh in my series about this year’s elections for the European Parliament. When you vote on May 22nd, you will be choosing who you want to represent you and your community on a European level. The Parliament and the EU are both important and influential. That is why my first post was about why it matters. It was worth looking at voter turnout after that to show how much people have cared about the elections previously and how much more we (as a nation) need to participate. Then I looked at the parties and alliances (both historic and current), as the parties will naturally group together to increase their chances of getting what they want. Knowing which alliances are aligned with the UK parties helps you to know who has the best chance of getting their agenda implemented.
The three posts after those were about the manifestos of some of the main parties – UKIP (they are a main party at this level), the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.
In this post, I look at the manifesto for the Labour Party.
Design, structure and location
First of all, I have to point out something very strange.
At the time of typing, if you type ‘Labour European elections manifesto’, you get the following:
You get a similar result if you use a longer search term. This isn’t exactly ideal for the party. As I have mentioned before, you cannot just assume that hardcore politics junkies will be the only ones to look at manifestos. These are important documents and should be easily accessible by doing simple searches.
According to the person I talked to after calling the number on their party website, I discovered that the European manifesto is on a completely different website (yourbritain.org.uk). This makes no sense. If people see the publicity for it, that’s not so bad. However, there will be plenty who didn’t see any publicity of the URL and would naturally go to the official party site.
Anyway, onto the document itself.
This is a 27 page, professionally presented, colour publication that has minimal use of images. It’s not the longest and doesn’t use any comedy font sizes (see the Conservative manifesto analysis). It’s also not the shortest (in the case of UKIP) and has plenty of content (24 pages of it).
There are forewords from Ed Milliband and the leader of the MEPs, with several sections that follow:
- Jobs and Growth (5 pages)
- Living standards (4 pages)
- Stronger, Safer Communities (2 pages)
- Immigration that works for Britain (4 pages)
- A Global Voice (4 pages)
- Reform and value for money (3 pages)
It’s interesting that those first two sections are where they are. It’s highly reflective of the current party focus. You will have often heard lines such as “a plan for jobs and growth” and “cost of living crisis”. Immigration is an obvious one. You wonder whether it would have as much space without the presence of UKIP in the polls though.
Each of the above sections has the following subsections:
- Europe and You
- Labour’s Priorities
- The Tories
- Labour’s MEPs fighting for you in Europe
You can’t help but notice the third point. They give a lot of space in this document up to criticising the Conservatives. Whilst they are the major UK coalition partner, they are no longer part of the largest alliance in the European Parliament (the European Peoples Party). They are now part of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Labour is part of an alliance bigger than the ECR (PASD). I feel strongly that they should focus on policy and highlight achievements, not reduce themselves to overt negativity.
In addition, there is absolutely no mention of UKIP or the Liberal Democrats.
Jobs and growth
Here are the priorities:
- EU jobs and growth agenda
- Tackling high youth unemployment
- Promoting trade
- European banking reform
- Tax avoidance
In the part about high youth unemployment, they don’t list any policies. All they do is mention one achievement – nothing about what they’ll do in the future. Also, youth unemployment has gone done, but it is right to note that it’s still unacceptably high.
The two main proposals for jobs and growth are the introduction of a Growth Commissioner and the completion of single markets for digital and energy.
For tax avoidance (a term for something which is legal by the way), there is a proposal of an international financial transaction tax. This would include the USA and presumably work in a similar way to the European version which 11 nations have signed up to (including Germany). However, Obama failed to get a version of this reform implemented, so it will be interesting to see if the USA sign up.
Under trade, there is mention of the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP). This is a venture between the USA and the EU. According to this report, liberalising tariffs could give both sides billions (in euros). Overall, it seems to benefit the EU more than the US. You have to ask where that extra money will be spent though and how exactly will it benefit the UK?
Other policies in this section include the following:
- A European version of the Office for Budget Responsibility
- Resources shifted from the Common Agricultural Policy to research and development for new technologies and industries
- Extend disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes
- Ensuring bankers bonuses are properly controlled
The first of those four points is solid. There are already Auditors, but the EU has a dubious record with accounts, so something needs to be done. There is nothing wrong with the third point either. Tax Avoidance is legal, so the schemes shouldn’t be banned – the focus should be on closing legal loopholes if you don’t like them. It’s right to disclose them though as it’s in the public interest. It’s good to ensure the control of banker bonuses, but there are no specifics about this – which is a shame. As for shifting resources from the CAP, there should be some detail about how it would affect those in the agricultural sector, as well as some numbers.
Living standards
Labour’s priorities in this area are the following:
- Tackling low pay and job insecurity
- Tackling the cost of living crisis by enhancing consumer rights
- Protecting the NHS
On the subject of low pay (from page 10):
“The next Labour Government will increase the fines for non-payment of the National Minimum Wage to £50,000 to provide a proper deterrent and give local government a role in enforcement”
This is a vote winner and it’s also nice to see a specific figure. However, will this be per company or per employee (genuinely interested)?
Then there is this (page 11):
“We will ban employers from being able to require zero-hours workers to be available on the of-chance that they will be needed; stop employees from being required to work exclusively for one firm if they are on a zero-hours contract; and ban the use of zero-hours contracts when employees are in practice working regular hours”
Preventing exclusivity is surely a vote winner as it enables low earners to increase their chances of getting a better overall income. Some might say that the whole quote is anti-business as many benefit from this type of flexible workforce. You could could also argue that it is the decision of the person on that contract to go for that job. However, there is still isn’t enough jobs available and people are forced into applying for anything. A counter to the anti-business argument is that this is not actually an outright ban and more secure contracts for employees could create a better working environment.
As for the oft-mentioned ‘cost of living crisis’ (page 11):
“Working in Europe Labour MEPs will tackle the cost of living crisis by ensuring that EU competition policies benefit consumers, particularly when it comes to energy”
This is stating the obvious more than anything else. Consumers should always benefit from competition laws. On the subject of energy, the is cross party support for reform, but differences on the exact way to do it. In the UK, Labour favour a price freeze (for example). However, if energy companies knew for certain that Labour would be elected, there would be nothing to stop them from dramatically increasing existing prices before the freeze is implemented.
The National Health Service is a big issue for Labour. It’s important to remember that it was that same party that introduced the institution that has benefited so many people. Although this isn’t a purely European issue, it’s curious that it takes up so little space in the manifesto. Apparently, Labour will protect the NHS from EU competition law, but don’t go into any specifics.
Immigration
These are their priorities for immigration:
- Controlling the impact of future enlargement
- Fair rules
- Preventing a race to the bottom on wages and conditions
One of the bigger proposals in this areas comes under ‘Fair rules’. Labour propose to extend the period where migrants are not able to claim unemployment benefits (page 17):
“Labour would look at increasing the period for which people have to be present in the UK before they can claim unemployment benefits from three months to six months. And we would pursue reforms in Europe so that child tax credit and child benefit are no longer paid to families living abroad”
It was the current UK government that introduced the three month rule and it was only recently (see this article). It was designed to reduce benefit tourism. Previous rules meant that migrants could claim benefits almost immediately. It’s important to note that whether it stays at 3 months or is extended to 6, it won’t completely eliminate the problem of benefit tourists. It would merely reduce them – hopefully to a more acceptable level. The second point is also a vote winner. UK benefits should go to those based in the UK. On the TV programme Gypsies on benefits and proud, we saw people coming to Britain and making out that their family was over here too. The reality was that they were still in their native country and the benefit money was being sent to them.
Another interesting proposal is to make sure that everyone coming to live in Britain must be able to speak English. The theory behind this is that it will aid their integration with existing communities. It’s not necessarily a new thing (some universities put international students on English courses before the start of their degree). This rule will also be applied to those in public sector jobs. Labour feel that “no-one living here should be excluded from the mainstream of society”. However, whilst this is a good policy, the Conservatives have already proposed it.
Other positives include reinstating finger print checks at the borders. It might slow things down, but do you want slow and accurate or quick and ineffective? People will also be counted at the border, so we would have a better idea of who is in the United Kingdom.
Other policies and points
When looking through this manifesto, I found multiple proposals that are also in the equivalent Conservative document. For instance, both of the parties will work towards ending the presence of two European Parliament buildings. Both will also campaign for more national-level influence over European legislation. Both also mention a ‘red card system’.
However, there are differences. They will hold a referendum on any future transfer of powers (if elected). If they become the party of government after the general election and implement that proposal, then there’ll be an in/out referendum. The problem is that there is no date for this referendum. This is unlike the Conservatives and a less well-defined position than both UKIP and the Liberal Democrats.
Finally…
I expect the next posts in this series to be relatively short. They will focus on the choice of voting system and public opinion. These manifesto posts have been longer because of the amount of detail contained within them. After that will be coverage of the results (probably over two posts). Naturally, those final two posts will be after the 25th (the end of voting in Europe).
So, what do you think?