Change - On Labour's Manifesto

Labour's manifesto, titled "Change", is a tepid manifesto lacking the radicalism needed for changing the fortunes of the UK. It exemplifies left-wing conservatism, shying away from bold change except in its comfort zone - the National Health Service.

Despite recognising the need for it, the manifesto is dearth of it. It's overly disciplined approach risks emboldening the hard right instead of weakening them through competent left-wing government. Local governments are expected to be empowered without any clear promises on how they'll acquire the necessary resources for effective action.

Labour's industrial strategy, rightly focused on the economic potential of combatting climate and promoting green industry, proposes only modest resources to support this strategy. A sovereign wealth fund will be capitalised by the tune of pennies, relying heavily on private investment, which has shown little inclination for investing over the past two decades. Labour promises that for every penny it contributes to the sovereign wealth fund, the private sector will denote three. This lack of ambition is designed to not scare private investors, rather than bringing about meaningful change.

Encouraging productive private investment is necessary, alongside public investment in ventures too risky and costly for the private sector. The UK needs an 'entrepreneurial state' - bold and risk-taking, seeking substantial long-term reward economically, socially and technologically. Labour talks about this, but the action underlying such talk are missing. The state must lead by example, bringing the private sector along. It is Labour's lack of leadership where the troubles lie.

Labour shows ambition in ensuring the entire electricity grid is zero-carbon by 2030. However, it has not committed to achieving neither Net Zero, nor getting rid of gas boilers, though. If it had, it might have needed to re-introduce the shilling demonstrating its commitment to fiscal conservatism.

The darling child of Labour - the NHS - is treat well in this manifesto. Moving towards preventing ailments, rather than fixing them, is welcome. Not only does the British public need this, but British governments as well. Using AI will speed up diagnostics and integrating health and social care are essential given our demographics. Placing mental health on par with physical health, again, shows that Labour understands what a healthy nation needs. Britain needs more than a good healthcare system to overcome its chronic ill health.

Eradicating the scurge of homelessness is a welcome goal. It is a blight on the UK that homelessness exists at all, let alone at its current rate. However, it's a shame that the scurge of poverty, especially child poverty, is not given the same priority. We cannot have the healthiest generation in our history if many still grow up in poverty. Making such commitments, though, would further push the case for reintroducing the shilling.

The stagnation of productivity in this country severely hampers its growth potential. Labour plans to invest in skills but provides no outline of its plan for the home nations outside England. Respecting the devolved parliaments is the right approach, but not to the point of neglect. Britain needs a coordinated strategy for tackling productivity, not just "Skills England". Plans for cooperating with Holyrood, Stormont and Cardiff Bay are desperately needed. Without such productivity increases, Britain will not grow and exploit the economic potential of tackling climate change.

Updating the curriculum will help boost the prospects of our youth, just as having dedicated mental health professionals in schools will. Free breakfast clubs will relieve malnourishment for children in poverty while improving educational outcomes. However, it would have been nice to hear something on the lines of "tough on poverty; tougher on the causes of poverty" with corresponding action.

Contemporary social democracy has become small-c conservative. The preservation of institutions and gradualist, unambitious reform is prevalent. This reflects the hollowing out of the left, making it effectively dead, as argued by Simon Winlow and Steve Hall. Modern social democracy is conservatism dressed in the language of the left.

The New Realist, in contrast, advocates for a radical social democratic alternative. However, the New Realist recognises that after Jeremy Corbyn's premiership, radical social democracy is not an option for Labour. Unfortunately, Corbyn was an anathema to many voters, and 'radical left' proposals are associated with his political toxicity. This is an inevitable consequence of Corbynism's failure to realise that its movements's weakness lay with its 'leader' - supposedly its strength according to Corbyn's supporters.

Detoxifying the radical left from the Corbyn's legacy, and his mainstream middle-class faux leftist 'advocates', is necessary before a feasible alternative for neoliberalism can emerge. It shouldn't be this way and needn't have been. The few anti-Corbyn left members who foresaw that his 'leadership' would, at best, been like Syriza in Greece, or worse kill the British left permanently, were proven right. Now the left must be rebuilt from scratch. Labour's manifesto reflects the magnitude of that task.