-
Good post, interesting perspective.
On this bit
Blair believed in hard work and reward but also fairness and reducing inequality.
I absolutely trust that Keir Starmer does too.
The fiscal discipline bit is an absolutely necessary precondition for a Labour government to get elected. Tories are permitted to act madly because the default media and public view of them is 'competent albeit cruel' (obvs competency is taking a well deserved reconsideration at the moment). Labour aren't, because the default view is 'heart in the right place but not businesslike enough'.
I hope that the manifesto does have some good things to offer the country. But it can be chock full of the things that everybody would want (cf free broadband, cancel tuition fees etc) and the effect is just that it isn't trusted, and Labour don't get into Government and get a chance to deliver.
lemonade-
I absolutely trust that Keir Starmer does too.
Me too. And so we're clear, I do not want a big wishlist of stuff in an unrealistic manifesto - that's not what I'm saying we're missing. I saw what happened in 2019 when Corbyn chucked a load of stuff in the manifesto without laying the narrative groundwork for it first. (I think the free broadband policy was one of those most stupid I've ever heard but there was the germ of a good idea in there - but the public would only have bought it if they'd spent the year talking about how digital pathways were the key to success in life, upping opportunities, and levelling up the north etc. But they didn't.)
What I'm saying is that I'm saying we've a gap in narrative which ties all our policies together, and combined with the shifting stances on some issues, our critics can make a more or less valid argument that we don't 'stand for anything' - even though many of those policies really do.
One of the most significant policy announcements I thought was the supervised brushing in schools policy. It's basic common sense, it's strong, the economic arguments are behind it, the social arguments are behind it, and it tells us something about the kind of government Starmer's going to run - interventionist, unafraid of the 'nanny state' accusations, dedicated to ensuring some baseline level of standards for kids with parents who can't or won't do it for them. More stuff like this would backfill the narrative deficit (imo).
ReekBlefs
There's the carnival bark and then there's the show. Labour ran with two competing narratives in that election - you're right that there was the 'you can trust us with the economy' narrative, which they sent (frankly) down the media pipes I wasn't aware of at the time, being an 18 year old lad with spunk in my eye and a song in my heart, who would rather get a sensible haircut than listen to the Today programme.
But there was also the 'things can only get better' narrative of optimism. Starmer doesn't need to copy that narrative - there's not much grounds for optimism right now - but he IS lacking an emotional direction of travel to allow me to contextualise the promises they make, to understand the basis on which they'll make their decisions. I'd even argue that for new Labour this strategic narrative was more prominent than the one you're referring to. They even put in their manifesto - the windfall levy on privatised utilities to fund work schemes, the promise to cut class sizes, the promise to cut NHS waiting lists. I knew less about politics then than I knew now but what that meant for my life was clear to me even at the time - Blair believed in hard work and reward but also fairness and reducing inequality.
I think the distinction between these two approaches is summarised by the distinction between Blair and Brown fwiw - Brown definitely wanted to push the iron chancellor image. Blair didn't. And Blair was who I was paying attention to.
I am a Labour man. I'm a treasurer for my local party, been a member for ages, and I'm a delegate. I'll be door knocking for Starmer. I'm in no way not going to vote for Labour. But I also see our weaknesses, and I don't think it harms us by discussing them.