Following the British electorate’s vote to leave the European Union, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, was confronted by a divided Parliament. Not only did she have a small overall majority of only 17 votes, she was confronted by many Members of Parliament who sought to reverse the vote on leaving the EU or to demand conditions, such as remaining in the single market, which would have left the UK bound to the EU. To secure a firm political base in Parliament, she called for an electoral mandate – a general election to take place on 8 June.

       At the time, this was a shrewd move as the opposition led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was rent with personal and policy differences. Opinion polls showed May’s Conservative Party to be ahead by a huge majority. On 18 April when she called the election she had a lead of 18 per cent over Labour with electoral pundits giving her 200 more seats than the Labour Party.

       Party Policies

       Against this background the leaders of both parties forged their election manifestos.

       Both leaders felt assured of taking a radical view but for different reasons. The Conservatives because they anticipated a resounding victory. May modified David Cameron’s austerity programme and moved to a more traditional form of Conservative state led paternalism. For Labour, under Jeremy Corbyn, previous campaigns under more moderate leaders such as Ed Miliband had led to defeat. The new leadership had nothing to lose by adopting more radical policies. Moreover, Corbyn, to most commentators’ surprise, revived Labour membership which supported more radical socialist policies.

       In the Parties’ election manifestos, both parties have moved away from a free market philosophy towards greater state involvement and regulation. The effects of the financial crisis of 2007- with its associated austerity programmes leading to greater unemployment on the one hand and excessive inequalities in income and wealth on the other are electoral liabilities. In foreign affairs, the Conservatives emphasise their strength in negotiating a successful exit from the European Union. Only Labour promises modest changes in foreign affairs.

       A common theme of all British political leaders is that all citizens should benefit from globalisation. Labour’s slogan is: ‘for the many, not the few’ and the Conservatives: ‘we will build a stronger, fairer, more prosperous Britain, for all of us’.

       The Conservative Party’s Manifesto

       Theresa May’s Conservatives ‘do not believe in untrammeled free markets… Change should be shaped through strong leadership and clear principles for the common good’. The Party calls for positive measures in favour of general welfare. Here there are significant moves away from the Reagan/Thatcher philosophy which sought to roll back the state. Greater control is to be exercised over foreign take-overs of, and mergers with, British firms. Government policy to preserve the ‘national interest’ will be used when the UK is outside the European Union. The Party proposes to increase the national living wage to 60 per cent of the median earnings.

       But traditional policies remain: there will be no reversal of privatisation; free trade is extolled and there is a pledge to ‘reduce taxes on Britain’s businesses and working families’. Corporation tax will fall to 17 per cent ‘the lowest rate of any developed economy’.

       While the idea of a ‘transformative’ politics is appealing politically, limits are set by forces within the Conservative party as well as the global context in which politics has to operate. These will constrain May’s policy. She will undoubtedly carry out policies promoting public works and infra structure development. But she will be unlikely to reduce significantly inequality of income and wealth. The proposed employee representatives on the Boards of major companies might curb some of the excesses of companies with respect to bonuses of executives. In this respect a Conservative government promises to ensure that shareholders will have annual votes over executive pay.

       Conservative policy promises benefits but no significant tax hikes. And commentators suggest that all the objectives cannot be secured by the stated taxation policies.

       The Labour Party Alternative

       For Labour, its Manifesto promises more. It envisages tax rises only for the top 5 per cent of earners. Corporation tax will be increased. State expenditure is planned to rise significantly. In the social sphere, Labour promises to raise the minimum wage; to introduce free childcare; to reduce the size of classes in schools, to provide free school meals. University students will be eligible for maintenance grants and tuition fees will be abolished. Social security benefits will also be enhanced. A National Investment Bank will be set up. Over ￡250 billion of government funds will be invested in infrastructure. Company law will be amended to ensure that companies act in the public interest and greater control will be secured over the take-over and merger of British companies. Public utilities (railways, the energy network, water, the post office) will be brought back into public ownership. Like the Conservatives, Labour policy has been criticised as being unaffordable in terms of its tax raising proposals.

       Foreign Affairs and Defence

       Foreign policy and defence are not foremost in the policy manifestos. However, the terroristic attack in Manchester leading to over 22 deaths and 120 injured as well as the knife attacks in London have led to questions being raised about links to British foreign policy.

       Both Labour and the Conservatives work within the existing framework of NATO. Labour even claims that the Conservatives have put Britain’s security at risk by reducing its contribution to NATO and making the UK’s army the smallest in size since the Napoleonic Wars. Whereas the Conservatives boast that they have procured the largest defence budget in Europe. Both parties subscribe to increasing defence capacity as well as to the renewal of the Trident submarine force. However, this general bipartisan level of agreement on Britain’s defence policy occludes some important differences.

       The present Labour leader is a long standing supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and has campaigned personally against Trident. He has publicly declared that he would not authorise the use of nuclear weapons. He is currently bound by the Labour Party’s policy in support of Trident which has been strongly influenced by trade unions’ insistence on the maintenance of employment in the defence industries sector. Under a promised Strategic Defence Review, Trident will no doubt be reconsidered. It would be difficult, but not impossible to reverse this policy and an anti-Trident policy plays an important role in the policy of Scotland’s largest party, the Scottish Nation Party. This will be difficult as in July 2016 only 118 Members of Parliament voted against Trident.

       Following the Manchester and London terroristic attacks, Corbyn has moved discussion away from the nuclear deterrent and defence policy positions by stressing the need to examine the underlying causes of civil conflict and unrest. Here he has brought out the deleterious effects of British support for intervention in internal wars and democracy promotion in the Middle East. The issue then is not so much how to deal with British Islamic Extremism, but the Islamic reaction to Western military overt and covert intervention in Islamic countries. Corbyn has a personal record of opposing British intervention in foreign wars. As he pointed out in his speech at Chatham House (London) on 12 May 2017, the West’s “‘war on terror’…has not succeeded… many would say just the opposite’. Unlike Theresa May and Donald Trump, in his Chatham House speech, he makes clear that he does not see the rise of India and China as a ‘danger’ to the West. He also calls for ending the ‘drift towards confrontation with Russia’. The emphasis of Labour under Corbyn is to promote peace and to this end the Party promises a Minister of Peace and Disarmament.

       Future Developments

       Theresa May opened the election campaign with the confident belief that her electoral campaign would return her to Parliament with a sound majority. Currently, an outright Labour victory looks unlikely. Jeremy Corbyn has narrowed the gap in his electoral support to 9 per cent on 29 May and in this case he would receive more votes than his predecessor, Ed Miliband. Could the pollsters be wrong?

       Labour has lost its traditional support and currently attracts only 26 per cent of working class votes [UGOV cited in Telegraph 20 May 2017]. The major political divide is based on age: Labour has a 19 per cent lead among the 18 to 24 year olds, whereas Conservatives have a 49 per cent lead among the over 65s. What might upset electoral calculations is a massive increase in the numbers of young voters who usually vote in lesser numbers than the old.

       A victory for Theresa May would certainly lead to a strengthening of the UK’s relationship with the USA in the context of established NATO policy. Its current policy with respect to ‘terrorism’ in the Middle East and a ‘resurgent’ Russia would continue.

       A Labour government would undoubtedly lead to a less aggressive UK foreign policy though within the framework of NATO. Corbyn would pursue negotiated settlements and only in the last resort, and with UN support, would rely on military intervention. Even in opposition, the promised Strategic Defence Review might well reverse Labour’s policy on Trident. In the event of a hung Parliament (no one Party having a clear majority) Labour allied to the Scottish Nationalists – who oppose Trident and like Corbyn favour negotiated settlements – could successfully outvote Conservative policies of foreign intervention.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.