Mirth You won't be surprised I find that editorial extremely disingenuous.
There's a mundane reason why the "euphemism" of boldness is associated with the left. The history of positive change to workers' lives, including all the mundane details like community amenities (libraries, parks and swimming pools), as well as wages growth and universal public goods, belongs to the left, and to democratic mass politics.
All most parties of capital could claim is a long history of sitting back and allowing the machinery of profit, investment in the means of production, financialisation and intermittent crisis go brrrr … at least when they weren't more recently abetting the carnage of institutions and services that benefit ordinary people.
But leaving aside any political valence, representative democracy becomes a feeble system when candidates of any persuasion don't seek a clear mandate for change.
Most agree that the lost years of Tory austerity were a mistake, stupidity in the most orthodox of economic understanding. Public goods require proper investment just to be maintained. And they are among the guarantors of economic growth, and the concentration of wealth penalises both society and economy.
I've talked a bit about Albanese's Labor government's issues in Australia. The fate of the so-called "stage three tax cuts" offers a great example of what I'm talking about. This policy was a sweeping tax bracket change proposed in 2019 for the end of FY 23–24 by the previous (Coalition) government, with a forecast Budget impact of over AUD300bn over the decade.
The proposed cuts had a regressive structure. Over half of the "relief" was set to go the top 10% of income earners, around 85% to the top 20%. As you know, this kind of tax change is wildly economically inefficient, as well as unjust.
Because Albanese's incoming Labor government pursued a "small target" strategy in its campaigning, it had endorsed these dumb tax cuts in full. Now after two years in office the ALP has only managed to slightly tinker with these changes—even though they weren't even due to come into force till now. Because of its campaigning, it has been faced with relentless charges of "broken promises" from the conservative press.
Albanese's campaign had far, far less political capital to spend pre-election than Starmer's has now. That's why UK Labour should consider treating daft statements like this (from that FT editorial) with a near perfect sincerity:
… Britain isn’t continental Europe. It doesn’t have the single market to offer. Even when it did, the nation’s competitive advantage tended to be ease of doing business. (As opposed to French infrastructure or German technical skills.)
Put simply, the UK could have its own "French infrastructure" and "German technical skills". It could be moving towards these or other worthwhile objectives with a degree of purpose. Most people have simple desires, true—I have a few myself—but a worthwhile politician connects people with fresh desires that serve the collective interest.
The fact that's how democracy is supposed to work is a minor detail …
Mirth I expect the manifesto to be pretty boring and middle of the road crafted to insulate from attacks in the upcoming debate.
More or less my point. It is important for UK Labour to defend itself from frivolous attacks. Not just now, but after the election when it wants to govern. Those attacks will come in thick and fast from FT lickspittles like … (checking my notes) … Janan Ganesh. That's why Labour, slated as a sure thing to smash the election, would be better off seeking a "bolder" mandate.
