A streamlined manifesto

The argument

In the past, Conservative manifestos ignored working-class voter priorities. The NHS was often overlooked, with the logic of the day presuming that to engage with voters on the NHS would only draw attention to an issue that was a particular strength of the Labour party. The calculation was defensive: raising a subject on which an opponent is trusted invites a comparison the party expects to lose, so silence seemed the safer course. In 2019, the Tories changed tack. They identified the key issues that resonated with voters and produced a laser-focused manifesto that promised to increase spending on the NHS and increase the minimum wage. Contesting that ground rather than conceding it removed the reason those voters had for treating the choice as settled in advance, and the brevity did work of its own: a manifesto with few promises is one whose promises can be remembered and believed. This thin but poignant manifesto was sufficient to win over working-class voters. In addition to winning new voters, the manifesto was intelligently designed to maintain the Tory’s core voter base. That is the harder half of any such move, since an offer built to attract a new group frequently unsettles the existing one, and a party that trades one constituency for another gains nothing. The pledge of no increases to income tax resonated with more prosperous Tory voters, delivering a manifesto that offered something for both key demographics. Taken together the two halves explain the result: a streamlined manifesto broadened the Conservative coalition without loosening its hold on the voters it already had, and it was that strong Tory showing which Labour lost the 2019 general election to.

Context

The Conservatives offered a streamlined, bare-bones manifesto that increased spending in key areas of voter interest (including healthcare, schools and crime) without promising the world.

Premises

Counter-arguments

In offering a very short and limited manifesto, the UK Conservative Party was essentially saying it sees nothing wrong with the status quo. It indicates a belief that the country is fine as it is it. This is an affront to working people who grapple with stagnant wages, long NHS wait times, and inadequate poverty relief mechanisms. Calling the limited Conservative manifesto a strength overlooks the extent that the British public is disgruntled with the way things are and their appetite for change (as indicated by the 2016 referendum result). The Conservative party won despite their meagre policy offerings. They got the party’s stance on Brexit right and were given a boost by a weak and divided Labour leadership. Their manifesto was more of a vulnerability than a strength.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] By offering little in the way of policy, Conservatives were essentially saying they were happy with the status quo. This would not have resonated with the working class. [Rejecting P3] The Conservatives won because they got one thing right: Brexit. They won despite the manifesto, not because of it.