I think as distinct policy ideas, all of these suggestions are interesting and may appeal to different groups, who as a whole have the potential to make up a majority come election time. However, I don’t think this patchwork approach wins elections — it falls foul to the Ed Miliband trap of trying to win elections through policy.
Even if you hammer these message ad infinitum, they are just a disparate set of policy suggestions. What they are not, is a coherent narrative or vision.
Labour won in ’97 because the vision ‘New Labour’ spoke to something that people understood at a really basic level, which resonated perfectly with where sentiment in the country was. This was a modern, forward looking, progressive Labour party, that still cared about the working class but understood the need to do things in a different way to what they had stood for in the 70s and 80s.
Unfortunately I don’t think the current Labour party has grasped a version of this yet. You have to start from a hypothesis not only on the distinct challenges facing the country (as you have done) but about the overarching sentiment in the country — at the moment in large parts of the country it is, unfortunately, one of fear, isolation, anger and individualism.
Sadiq’s campaign in London cannot be replicated nationally because the sentiment in London is ENTIRELY different to that of the rest of the country. That positive, inclusive and warm aura he projected resonated with people in London who, by and large, are inclusive, are positive about the future etc…Zach’s failed because he tried to rely on the Conservative approach in the general election — fear. This worked for the Conservative’s nationally, it failed for Zach in London. The reverse would happen for Labour and Sadiq. The two require different visions.
Unfortunately I don’t have a solution. But you’re smarter than I am. So, have a think…