Home > UK General Election 2010 > UK General Election: Labour Party Manifesto and Human Rights

UK General Election: Labour Party Manifesto and Human Rights

The British Labour Party yesterday published its manifesto for Election 2010. There are a number of key commitments in relation to human rights which should be highlighted (and may put them at odds with the Conservative Party).

  • Demanding rights and responsibilities for all. While the Manifesto does not outline in any detail key human rights, responsibilities of all are outlined as: the obligation to work when you can; not to abuse your neighbour or neighbourhood; for newcomers to show respect for Britain and to pay a fair share of taxes;
  • Committment to maintaining the new Equality Act 2010;
  • Continue to support the Human Rights Act 1998, as a means of “bringing rights home“;
  • Human rights as a key component to foreign policy;
  • Reorientating of foreign aid issues, as key human rights issues. The Manifesto states: ” Access to health, education, food, water and sanitation are basic human rights”;
  • Building a modern welfare state, where there is an obligation to work where people are  in position to do so, and assisting those  out of employment into employment. The Labour Pary also committs to seeking to end child poverty by 2020 (see also Child Poverty Act 2010), through increasing opportunities for parents to work.
  • Commitments to older people, through improving quality of life, allowing older people who want to, to work, ensuring adequate pension provision.
  • Providing greater level of choice to individuals health rights, while also expecting greater responsibilities of those using the National Health Service.
  • Strengthening the immigration system so that it  is firm, but fair;
  • Committed to a free vote  in Parliament on whether the franchise should be extended to those 16 years and older;
  • Introduce an Alternative Vote system (to replace the current first past the post);

As with all party political manifestos, there is a great degree of rhetoric, without key detail on how many of these aims are to be achieved. Commitments on rights protection must be viewed in light of the previous 13 years that the Labour Party has governed. While support for human rights have been evident with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, at times government representatives have criticised the interpretation of the 1998 Act by the judiciary (see here, here and here). The war on terror has seen some draconian enforcement of laws which prima facie appear to be contary to established human rights norms (see here, here, here, here and Richard Wilson’s excellent edited collection here)

Labour has also flirted with the idea of introducing a British Bill of Rights, this would complement, rather than replace the 1998 Act. The Conservative Party in its 2010 Manifesto has pledged to scrap the 1998 Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

In relation to welfare reforms, the Labour Party has committed to pressing ahead with its punitive welfare state model (see here). Since coming into power, welfare/socio-economic rights in the UK have become intertwined with notions of individual responsiblity and conditionality. Rather than viewing welfare rights as inherent within human rights, the debate has been re-orientated to one of ‘rights and responsibilities’ (see here (subscription required)). With welfare sanctions, without regard to socio-economic rights  of dependents, as being a feature of the British welfare state.

These are just some key human rights issues which I have selected from the Labour Manifesto, after a very quick read through and have focused on domestic British laws and policies. Please feel free to highlight other issues/concerns in the comment section below.

  1. sara
    April 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    What Human Rights??? The ECHR made a very inexcusable mistake by the judgement made on 16 March 2010 in which they said that there was no case under discrimination for the minimum of 500,000 british expats whose pensions have been frozen purely because they live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and a few other countries. In most of the other countries in the world including Europe, british expats pensions are NOT frozen. This is total discrimination. Why penalise some and not others? Human Rights? Gordon Brown should be throughly ashamed for what he has done. Where is the frozen money going to? We paid our N.I. contributions in full, exactly the same as the others. The ECHR should also be very ashamed. How can these people sleep at night? We would like an answer. Where is this money going? If it is buying/renting expensive accommodation for so called refugees or being sent to Romania or other E. European countries for children who have never set foot in the UK. This truly is discrimination. What do other people think?

  2. April 14, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Sara, a guest contributor commented on this case, you can find the post here: https://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/kenny-on-carson-ors-v-the-united-kingdom/

    I don’t necessarily agree with the courts decision in this case either. I personally believe the court should have examined concepts of discrimination in more detail-there were also six dissenting judges who would have allowed the case (but these were in a minority).I think proprietary rights were established on the basis that N.I. contributions were made; and to hold back index linked increases on the basis of residence outside the UK (and EU) is not justifiable.

    However, I must object to blaming people who claim asylum and the citizens of the EU-15 -this policy was in place long before asylum or the EU was of any concern to the popular press.

  3. sara
    April 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Thank you. Have read it. Re Asylum and citizens of the EU – well if the policy was in place long ago, then we should go with the times and change things which are causing grief to the people in Britain. There are so many of them with not enough money to live on. Some live on Charity – just like some who live on Charity in Australia which we know is true.We do not get any handouts from the Australian government because the law was changed a few months before we arrived.It is Britain which refuses to make a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth countries. Australia is losing a lot of money funding some British pensioners.

  1. April 14, 2010 at 7:02 am
  2. April 14, 2010 at 11:19 am
  3. April 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: