A good try Sunder but it wont win us a 4th term.
We need a complete rethink  and rebranding as you've said we can't present the same old policies as before. We have to be rebranded just as new Labour was in 1997.
The most pressing issue is still going to be immigration controls; the present rate is pressing hard on our ability to deliver services. Greater Security and ID cards have to be introduced; but we shouldn't be expcted to pay for the cost; it should come out of general taxation in the same way as NI Cards or NHS cards. The environment, well more prescriptive measures have to be introduced to reduce waste. Education has to be broader based and specialisation left till later exit the A levels. And Foreign Aid has to be given with strings attached in an attemot to reduce corruption, or not given at all. And Constitutional Reform yes with PR. None of thes issues have been included in your Manifesto. You've ducked the real concerns facing Britain. 

[ Parent ]

donpaskini, I take the liberal-left wishlist point. The `progressive tests' are not intended to offer a whole manifesto. They are about mobilizing the party itself and broader campaigning energy, and keeping the liberal-left vote as part of our coalition. I do not agree about 'electoral poison': I don't think there need be trade-offs with the rest of the electoral coalition are, though you correctly identify a couple of key stress points. But the structure of the underlying argument is this. Not being the Tories won't in itself be enough. This time, the broad coalition depends on winning swing votes, and securing the working-class base (largely from abstaining) and the liberal-left. With swing voters, the economy and leadership will be of primary importance. But making leadership about `standing for something' (the sense of authenticity can be more important than what the something is), not simply a competence comparison, offers the chance to meet this test, while also setting There are two important challenges. How to frame an opportunity and inequality argument work for working-class and liberal votes without losing the swing votes - I try to look earlier in the paper at the narrative which can do that, on issues like housing which work across the coalition. But much more needs to be done on this. The other, which you identify, is how to deal with issues like crime and immigration in a way which is credible and deals with the broad public concern, but which does not repel liberal support. So your last point is spot on. The heartland vote depends on articulating that the government is on your side, and that the difference between the parties matters. The policy agenda is well placed to do that, but we need to explain what we are doing and why. On liberal issues, Lords reform and constitutional reform is not highly electorally salient, but it would mobilize a particular constituency: I don't think there is any strong public opposition at all. A shift of tone, and then policy, on civil liberties would have quite a broad `middle england' as well as liberal-left appeal. Post-Iraq, there will be broad concern about the consequences of an Iran crisis, so we need to contain that. There is a highly motivated Eurosceptic core, but largely already party of the Tory base, sometimes flirting with UKIP. Most voters are agnostic. Where Labour voters are skeptical, I don't think it is an issue that many votes will switch over. Yes, green issues could be difficult, eg rubbish taxes. Government has to do this: it isn't an electorally-led agenda. But the politics here has changed. The LibDems will run on environment as their distinctive issue, being greener than Labour. But the Tories will also find it difficult to take populist opposition positions (though they may do so opportunistically locally) because they would take a bigger hit on Cameron flip-flopping and lack of authenticity. So the political veto points may have shifted, if we can keep this agenda on track as no major party can articulate a strong opposition.

[ Parent ]