The Labour election report looks really honest and comprehensive. As good as you could want from a political committee. But, inevitably there are some threads they haven't pulled... (1/x)

First: ‘people want bold’ is a key message in the media today. But when Labour says ‘bold’ people hear ££££ not reform (or predistribution). And the data suggests that’s a problem…

Less than half the country thought the country could afford the kind of plans Labour had, and of those, less than half trusted Labour to spend the cash. (p.64)

Covid-19 may change all this profoundly, but in 2019 big spending from Labour was a c.25% proposition.

Second: the report says the manifesto policies were liked individually but not collectively. But there is another reason for low trust - the Labour brand. The word ‘brand’ is not in the report.

The task of meeting voter demand for huge change (which is real) and their demand for solid reliability (also real) is hard. It has to be solved over years.

In 2015, Lab tried to solve the problem with a modest manifesto, rather than prioritising credibility in the years prior and using the space that trust opens up. It's not really about the manifesto.

Third: Identity. The report is clear there is a challenge of coalition building, but doesnt get into where the concrete areas of overlap and divergence are in society. It contrasts v different groups (grads under 40 v non grads over 65)

And it is gentle on the contrast between the general population and Labour members. The proposed education sessions are a good idea, but it may be a more systemic problem about the vanguardist qualities of people who want to join political parties today.