1. Democracy was not a first-order issue in the 2005 General Election campaign

2. Policies with democratic implications which achieved most prominence in 2005 were actually likely to erode, not enhance, democratic values. The possible impact of such proposals upon democracy was not sufficiently discussed

3. Certain democratic issues were dealt with by parties in 2005, but many others were overlooked by all or nearly all of them. Where issues were covered, there was not always a range of options

4. The circumstances of a general election campaign are not conducive to the meaningful discussion of policy options, including those with democratic implications. Indeed, the atmosphere of the 2005 poll itself may have constituted an assault on democratic values in the UK

5. Manifestos are a flawed means of providing the electorate with options for the functioning of democracy but at present, they are the only means. Their value as a democratic tool is not entirely negligible at present, and is potentially immense

Democratic issues – with certain exceptions – were not generally given great prominence in party manifestos. The parties did not promote them heavily during the campaign, and there was no substantial media coverage of them. While the invasion of Iraq became a significant issue, there was no debate on the implications of the process of going to war for democracy and accountability; how the powers of the executive might be made more accountable; or how the powers of Parliament to subject the executive to oversight might be improved. The leak of the Attorney General’s legal advice gained prominence, but almost solely in the personal context of whether his arm had been twisted to come up with suitable advice. The constitutional implications were ignored. Democratic subjects were dealt with most by the smaller parties, having the effect of relegating democracy to the status of a fringe issue. This may be because democracy is regarded as an ‘abstract’ issue, which can appear remote from the everyday lives of voters, and is therefore most attractive to ‘anti-system’ parties.

Back to top

Immigration and asylum were a central issue of the 2005 campaign, and prominent in a number of manifestos. It is important that parties should be able to raise issues such as these, which are of concern to a considerable proportion of the population. But immigration and asylum were often merged together misleadingly as a single subject because they involve individuals of foreign origin. And the parties widely accepted – at least in part – the characterisation of outsiders entering the UK as a problem or threat that had to be guarded against. Many party proposals entailed curtailing the liberties of immigrants, asylum seekers, and sometimes the entire population in the process. In a number of manifestos there were broader attacks on the concept of ‘political correctness’, as manifested in such forms as the Human Rights Act and equal opportunities policy. The impression was created of a bureaucratic liberal establishment imposing an alien concept of equality from above. For Democratic Audit, democracy and human rights are interdependent – therefore erosions of human rights, such as those proposed in some manifestos in 2005, would amount to erosions of democracy, even if the party which put them forward received support enabling it to secure a parliamentary majority. Much of the press shared – and thus implicitly encouraged – the approach taken by many parties towards immigration and asylum, paying little heed to possible encroachments upon democratic and human rights principles. Conservative policy on stopping unofficial traveller and gypsy encampments focused, like the supporting press campaign, on the grievances of residents troubled by the proximity of gypsy sites; the historical background of political and official neglect of the pressing need for provision was not seen as relevant.

A press/political party consensus existed around the supposedly self-evident need to place more police ‘on the beat’; and the necessity of using novel legal methods to combat ‘anti-social behaviour.’ The historical analysis of manifestos suggests that the governing party always claims it has put greater numbers of police on the beat, while the opposition parties always claim there are not enough. The pattern was repeated in 2005. In some respects, Labour is less committed to the protection of civil and political rights than it has been in earlier periods. However, in 2005 it did promise a Single Equality Act and legislation to prevent incitement to religious hatred (though the latter measure has been criticised for its potential to undermine freedom of speech).

Back to top

The future of the House of Lords and decentralisation of power from Westminster/Whitehall to nations, regions, councils, or local organisations, were common themes. The main parties chose not to promote their European policies. The variance of approach between Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the one hand, and the more Euro-sceptical Conservatives on the other hand was not, therefore, given a public airing. Of all the parties, small or large, only the Liberal Democrats referred to the Royal Prerogative. Yet its use had formally facilitated the most controversial policy of the 2001-5 Parliament, the Iraq war. Criticism of the decision to go to war became one of the liveliest aspects of the election and Labour lost both votes and seats over the issue (including the loss of Bethnal Green to the Respect Party). It seems likely that Labour had lost votes over this issue well in advance of the actual election campaign and the British Election Study at Essex suggests that the Prime Minister has lost considerable authority over it.

No party had proposals for entrenching the principle of collective Cabinet government. Freedom of Information, which is still subject to ministerial veto, was similarly neglected. Where issues were dealt with widely, there were sometimes different approaches offered – for instance over the House of Lords and devolution – but at others there was considerable convergence – for instance, the need to localise and democratise assorted aspects of public service delivery and decision making; or the desirability of slimming down the Civil Service – and it was not always clear what precisely the parties had in mind beyond their slogans. The most positive election pledge from the governing party (and by the Liberal Democrats) was for an Equality Act that would put protection of the rights of all minorities on an equal footing.

The historical analysis shows that at different elections, different democratic subjects have received varying degrees of attention. For instance, in 1945, there was much consideration of economic and social rights – though not always directly described as such. In later elections, political and civil rights became relatively more prominent. Since 1983, Labour has moved away from the basic welfare state approach of universal social, health and educational provision and has opened up much of the ‘old welfare state’ to private and voluntary provision. There has also been a major shift away from local state housing provision. Access to state services was never conceived of as a social and economic right, but the withdrawal from the basic protections that Labour previously offered its working-class base has been withdrawn and other Democratic Audit analysis suggests that the British National Party is one of the beneficiaries of this change. The main parties have consistently proclaimed themselves supporters of international organisations, especially the UN, but what this entails in terms of action is never entirely clear, and dependent upon many international contingencies.

The claim made by some parties in 2005 that they were breaking with a supposed long-term liberal consensus by promising tighter controls on immigration, and therefore providing the electorate with options they had not previously been offered, is false. In both 1970 and 1983 (as well as in other elections not assessed here) the Conservative Party proposed similar policies. It won both of these elections and therefore had the opportunity to implement such proposals – raising the question of why they are still needed now and allowing the BNP to ridicule their commitment to such policies.

Back to top

Elections are a fight to the death between parties, in which manifestos and policies are just two among a number of weapons, including negative campaigning, and personality promotion. They are not primarily geared to a deliberative and meaningful discussion of democratic or other policy options. Parties may even be willing to attack democratic values in order to secure political gain. Some of the smaller parties which referred prominently to democratic concepts, such as equality, did so in part as a coded attacks on rivals – such was the case in the Northern Ireland. The BNP claimed to represent democratic principles, but with a majoritarian twist aimed at indigenous white populations and scapegoating minorities, and especially Muslim communities.

Within such a battle, newspapers are prone to taking sides, or pursuing their own agendas on particular subjects. Therefore, the presentation and public discussion of proposals is subordinate to electoral strategies and often distorted single-issue campaigns. Policies and the issues surrounding them are often represented in an unbalanced way, both by the parties that put them forward, their opponents, and the media.

The integrity of the manifesto as a single document comprising a contract between voters and aspiring government is compromised by such tactics as advanced trailing of certain ideas – making the manifesto a jumping off point for a targeted campaign rather than a document to be presented as a coherent whole. Further, internal disagreements, such as within Labour on its proposals for House of Lords reform, are disguised by fudged drafting. The presentation of issues such as immigration, asylum and gypsy encampments tended to exploit feelings against minority groups and was associated with an increase in hate crimes against them.

Back to top

Labour’s 2005 manifesto has a post-hoc value across the board as it contains a large number of policy proposals that can be monitored over the party’s period in office. Of the two other larger parties, the Liberal Democrat manifesto contained explicit policies for which the party could have argued had they been in a governing coalition; but the focus-group driven collection of proposals in the Conservative manifesto were not suitable for a realistic programme in government or even in opposition.

From a democratic perspective, however, the very nature of the UK political system means that manifestos do not often provide voters with a satisfactory vehicle for democratic reform. Manifestos are devised in an undemocratic way, in that the process is dominated by the leadership. They are platforms for parties wishing to seize control of a centralised, executive-loaded form of government. As such they are unlikely to deliver reforms which might lead to a reduction in the power-base of the group that has just gained office. In 1997, Labour was pledged to a remarkable programme of constitutional reform, partly due to the efforts of the Scottish drive for devolution, and partly because devolution and a human rights act were legacies from the late John Smith, but largely overall because the Labour leadership feared that they might once again not win the election and therefore sought the makings of an alliance with the reform-minded Liberal Democrats.

The present Labour leadership has noticeably dropped democratic promises and reforms, such as the commitment in 1997 to hold a referendum on voting reform and earlier proposals, like reform of the Royal Prerogative, that the party had an interest in while in opposition. Independent manifesto enforcement by a legislature dominated by the executive is not possible. The discretion available to the executive, and its ability to dominate the political agenda, means that it can interpret its manifesto as it sees fit, or indeed ignore it. Our historical analysis shows that parties have long promised to deliver such objectives as more responsive, localised public services, but have seemingly never done so effectively, since they continue to propose doing so. The party which has (partially opportunistically) proposed electoral change, entrenchment of civil and political rights, and devolution of power the most consistently, has been kept out of office by the very system it sought to reform. These tendencies are suggestive of systemic weakness in UK democracy.