IT’S no wonder that last Thursday Labour leader Keir Starmer chose not to use the word “pledge” in launching what he called his six “doorstep offers” to the electorate.
In recent years, public trust in politicians and their promises has fallen to an all-time low.
So much so that when I display a pair of cufflinks which say, “I’m a politician, trust me”, it is to get a laugh.
Back in 1997, we launched five commitments to be used on the doorstep, then described as a “pledge card”.
But it’s a tricky business.
I remember John Prescott always having to fish in his pocket for his card to make sure that he got them right.
I was lucky because, as Shadow Education and Employment Secretary, I had responsibility for two of the five pledges — cutting class sizes for the early years of primary school to 30 or less, and getting 250,000 under-25s off benefits.
Our targets in our 1997 pledge card were more easily measured, for understandable reasons, than those revealed by Keir this week.
What his commitments have in common with 1997 is the issue of cutting NHS waiting lists.
So much has happened since then that getting waiting times down to 18 weeks seems like a distant dream, with 7.8million people now in the queue.
While Keir Starmer’s pledge on the economy is about stability, back then it was about reducing VAT.
There are two new offers to the electorate.
One is setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned company.
The second, which was not an issue in 1997 (although it should have been seen as a slow-burning timebomb), is about border security.
The establishment of a dedicated Border Security Command with the right funding and collaboration with France is important — but given the current toxic debate about inward migration, this is, I’m afraid, going to be a flimsy shield against the constant attacks from the Tories.
Let’s be clear. Pledges or “doorstep offers” of this sort have nothing to do with detailed policy.
Back in ’97, two things struck me.
First, that the reality of committing to invest in children’s early years, and the transformation of primary education across the country, were not mentioned for one good reason — you couldn’t fit them on a pledge card!
Second, that commitments of a simple nature never turn out to be simple to implement.
Getting class sizes down to under 30 was well-intentioned but we had to spend much more money than was predicted.
But the real pitfall of eye-catching pronouncements and one-liners in difficult policy areas is ridicule.
Readers will remember, I’m sure, that when Ed Miliband was Labour leader from 2010 to 2015, he was so intent on assuring people that, if elected, Labour would not break its promises that he decided it would be a good idea to put them on a massive stone plinth.
This is where wise counsel sometimes comes in handy.
Because, given a year or two of experience, anyone could have seen that as his name was Ed, the obvious jibe was that this would be his “Edstone”.
I have read that those around Keir Starmer have been briefing that work on policy for government has been completed.
If it were true, and I don’t believe it, then my advice would be — as it always has been to the students I teach — “I would look over this essay again and see what you have missed”.
In the run-up to an election which is Labour’s to lose, it is not solely what you want to do, but, crucially, how you would manage to do it which will be so vital.
Not so much “back to the drawing board”, but drawing on the experience and goodwill of those who genuinely want a change of government, and are desperate for the hope, energy and drive that would come with it.
