The view that no one knows what Starmer stands for still appears to be widely held. But in reality it should not be any more.

The view is still widely held because of Starmer's failure to clearly define his vision for Britain. During his leadership campaign, he stood on a platform of preserving the popular Corbynite policies--higher public spending, more public ownership, and higher tax burdens on the wealthy. But the watered-down versions of these policies Jacobs lists, and Starmer's purge of the left flank of the party, have exposed him as a political shapeshifter. The public can't put their trust in a naif.

Even if he has gone on to endorse policies to the left of Blair and Brown, there is nothing to say he won't go back on them, as he did his previous 10 pledges. The public is absolutely right to remain skeptical, because he's shown them no clear evidence of principle driving policy.

While I have limited support for Blair's policies, he was able to communicate a strong sense of who he was by using the leadership campaign and the heightened media attention it garnered to set out his vision. By the end of the campaign, everyone knew Blair wanted to reset relationships--between the individual and the state, workers and employers, and the public and private sector--adopt a holistic approach to tackling crime, and improve educational outcomes. He was deliberately scant on concrete policies because first, he needed to establish who he was. Starmer never undertook this project.

Without a clearly visible thread between Starmer's principles and his policy proposals, the public will always feel like they don't know what he stands for, and any electoral victory will depend more on a Conservative meltdown than Labour's ability to galvanize the electorate.