Labour Party’s Manifesto Planning: Prioritizing Policies and Ensuring Implementation

The Labour Party, which has been out of power for 14 long years, is gearing up for the upcoming general election. With a renewed sense of purpose and determination, the party’s shadow ministers have been instructed to submit their ideas for the manifesto before the end of the week. Behind the scenes, party chiefs are wrestling with the practical and political challenges of turning policies into legislation if the Labour Party manages to win the election.

The first challenge for the Labour Party is how to put ideas into action with only a few shadow ministers having held actual ministerial office. The second challenge is demonstrating to voters how a Labour government, constrained by the state of the economy and self-denying ordinances on tax, could make a difference.

Since just after the party’s conference in October, a committee of senior politicians and advisers has been working on these issues. The shadow leader of the House, Lucy Powell, who is also a former chief of staff to Ed Miliband, has been leading the team. Among the members are Sir Keir Starmer’s current chief of staff and former senior civil servant, Sue Gray; the shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry; Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith; and the party’s chief whips in the Lords and the Commons. Shadow minister Jonathan Ashworth has also attended some meetings. His role includes anticipating and finding ways to neutralise Tory attacks.

The committee’s primary focus is on a Labour government’s first King’s Speech. However, they are also looking at which other measures to place in the policy pipeline if Labour wins and completes a full first term. None of this will be set in stone until the manifesto is agreed at a clause 5 meeting of senior MPs, National Executive members, and unions once the election has been called.

Economic and financial measures would certainly be enacted early on. These would include Rachel Reeves’s “fiscal lock,” which would ensure that chancellors cannot ignore or bypass the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. A more voter-friendly offer, the Office for Value for Money, is likely to be an early creation. This is designed to convince voters that their government really does intend to spend their money wisely.

A finance bill would also need to be enacted swiftly to implement limited tax rises such as imposing VAT on private school fees and ensuring wealthy foreign residents are subject to full UK taxation. However, extensive employment rights legislation would also be a priority, appealing not just to the party’s union funders but to traditional supporters who fear the Starmer leadership has moved too far to the right.

Turning the party’s mission on clean energy into legislation would be another early challenge. There is currently a discussion on whether to have a catch-all bill encompassing planning changes, which could help deliver everything from more housing to new onshore wind capacity.

In some cases, legislation could be determined by preparation rather than priorities. When Labour was in opposition in the 1990s, a promised right to roam bill had not been considered pressing. However, it made it into the 1997 government’s first Queen’s Speech simply because it was ready to go. This time round, transport policy is far advanced, on bus regulation and the gradual return of rail to public ownership, so could be fast-tracked.

Sue Gray, who has been instrumental in preparing Labour’s policies for government, believes the party needs to present the mandarins with ideas that can be implemented and not amorphous ambitions that could take years to emerge as coherent laws. Both Angela Smith and the Labour Lords’ chief whip Roy Kennedy are on the committee not just because some legislation starts off in the Upper House but because it is also the place that poses dangers to more controversial measures. The calculation is that the Conservatives have an advantage of 100 or so active peers, so the Labour Lords are advising on the likely scale of opposition to certain measures and where concessions may have to be made.

The 8 February manifesto deadline is to focus the minds of shadow ministers in ensuring that policies are ready, especially in the event of a May poll. It is also to identify any gaps where more work needs to be done. Policies ranging from social care to student finance need further development. If there is a May election, some sections of the manifesto could consist of rather bland “holding statements,” but these could be expanded before an autumn poll. That said, most of the committee’s initial work was dealing with a glut of proposals, not gaps.

Mr Ashworth’s role has been rather different – casting a critical gaze over the policy ideas and thinking about how they might be delivered rather than simply turned into law. One insider described his role as “pummelling the policy” then “serving it up” to the committee for them to transform it into something that is palatable to parliament. There is a strong desire to see a clear connection between the manifesto, the main themes of the election campaign, and some of the first things Labour would do if it formed a government.

In conclusion, the Labour Party’s manifesto planning involves prioritizing policies and ensuring their implementation if the party manages to win the upcoming general election. The challenges include putting ideas into action with only a few shadow ministers having held actual ministerial office and demonstrating to voters how a Labour government, constrained by the state of the economy and self-denying ordinances on tax, could make a difference. The committee is looking at economic and financial measures, employment rights legislation, clean energy legislation, and transport policy, among other things. The manifesto deadline is to focus the minds of shadow ministers and identify any gaps where more work needs to be done. The party needs to present the mandarins with ideas that can be implemented and not amorphous ambitions that could take years to emerge as coherent laws.