-
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-
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).
I'm surprised you mentioned this as fitting the narrative gap you're talking about. To me it's a very bizarre policy indeed, and one that I suspect voters will likely reject as government being too involved in their children's lives, rather than fixing the underlying issues. Either that, or they'll fucking love it because it's authoritarian and focused on poorer households.
That's not to say they're not trying to fix the underlying issues, but this stuff quoted in the article is way more important, and I suspect more resonant too:
Labour’s action plan includes a 9pm watershed for junk-food ads, banning vape adverts aimed at children, a free breakfast club in every primary school, better access to mental-health support, cutting waiting times for hospital care for children, and guaranteeing more dental appointments.
It feels like the moment has changed and space for a few big interventionist policies would go down really well — not on people, but on systems. The green investment fund and single worker status were those things.
slippers
Good post, interesting perspective.
On this bit
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.