-
I think it's quite smart. To me it feels like a gateway policy. Something hard to argue with. It shifts the narrative on State intervention and tries to detoxify it.
Or maybe it's just a proof of concept?
That said Idk why Daily Mail types are so anti State intervention. They're the biggest lot of agentless fucking bedwetters ever. As soon as something is notionally within their world they absolve themselves of any responsibility and want the State to do everything - make a law banning this, give me a scrapage scheme for that, tripple lock these, etc. Forever a hand out, never one in their pockets.
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:
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.