1974, 1983, and 2017: A Tale of Three Manifestos

In 1983, Labour was fighting for its political life. It was riven by splits between the hard-left quasi Marxists and the centre-left social democrats. Two years earlier, a fair chunk of the centre-left bloc had left Labour entirely, forming a new Social Democratic Party. The SDP, in alliance with the Liberals, were snapping at Labour's heels. And confronting them both was Margaret Thatcher. Written off in 1981 as the Prime Minister who had presided over economic catastrophe and social collapse, by 1983 she was riding victory in the Falklands, and belated economic recovery, to a victory of her own.

Amidst this crisis for Labour, came the day when they needed to decide what was going to go into the election manifesto. Instead of being a protracted fight, the party leadership decided to adopt the various policy documents produced over the last few years and just put them together. What they got was a document which promised a drastic break from the Britain of the early Eighties. It proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from the European Economic Community and NATO, the imposition of exchange controls, the creation of a 'siege economy' (whereby British jobs and firms would be protected by the state against external markets, the abolition of the House of Lords, renationalisation of BT, shipping and aerospace companies, and the reunification of Ireland against Unionist wishes.

It had nearly been worse. Until the last minute, it contained a policy on the regulation and inspection of puppy farms.

Roy Hattersley, a leading figure on the centre of the party, was one of those appalled by the document. He went to see the head of the NEC, and demanded to know what the hell they were playing at, nodding this through. The party official replied grimly, that this was (leading left-winger) Tony Benn's election, and so it would be fought on his terms.

The strange thing is, it wasn't even the most left-wing Labour manifesto ever. In February 1974, Labour went before the electorate promising to impose price and pay controls, allow workers a huge say in how their companies operated, vast nationalisations, including the top 100 companies, and:

Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families.

Eliminate poverty wherever it exists in Britain, and commit ourselves to a substantial increase in our contribution to fight poverty abroad.

On polling day 1983 Labour slumped to it's worst result since it had become a truly national party. It's 209 seats (to Mrs Thatcher's 397 seats) hid the terrifying reality that Labour had only taken 27.6% of the vote, a mere 2% ahead of the Liberal/SDP Alliance. It could have been worse; some Labour figures feared if the election had carried on for another week, they would have come third. Many Labour voters told the party they had voted for the party despite the programme, not because of it. The manifesto was already known as 'the longest suicide note' in history, a name given to it by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman.

By comparison, the election of February 1974 produced a much less clear result. Labour won 301 seats, to the Tory's 297; confusingly, the Conservatives polled 200,000 more votes than Labour. Both were well short of the winning post of 318, and in a fractured Parliament, neither party was able to cobble together a coalition. Harold Wilson formed a minority government, and struggled on until the autumn, when he won a narrow election victory on a more nuanced programme.

So why has 1983 gone down as the 'longest suicide note in history,' and not 1974? Probably because of the result. In 1983, Labour crashed to a catastrophic defeat. In February 1974, they got into government, although this masked their tumbling vote share and underlying electoral problems. How 2017's manifest will be judged by history is unknowable until the voters have delivered their verdict on June 9th.

But if the effect of 1983's manifesto was intended by some to show the hard-left a lesson, then it worked. This grim strategy had nearly destroyed the Labour party, but it had taken the hard-left with it. Most importantly of all, Tony Benn had been ousted from his Bristol seat, preventing him from standing in the leadership election. The slow process of rescuing Labour as a party of power began. But those ideas were beyond the pale. Many of them were actually brought in by New Labour in 1997-2010. But they didn't shout about it. My fear is that, by tying all of these ideas, many of which are a left-wing dream, to Cornyn's electoral prospects, his team are pushing them out of contention yet again.

Oh, and at 124 pages, 2017's manifesto is a bit longer than the 39 pages of the 'longest suicide note in history.'