The central problem with 'levelling up' was that no one in government ever quite articulated what it meant. Was it the application of a lick of paint to dilapidated northern high streets, or did it entail a fundamental rewiring of the British economy? And if it was the latter, join the queue, mate.
It has been the avowed aim of practically every prime minister dating back a century to rebalance the economy and support regions left behind. More recently there have been Regional Development Agencies and Local Enterprise Partnerships, but even in the 1930s, the government invested in 'Special Areas' which sought to bring regeneration to run down places.
There is a similar fuzziness to Keir Starmer's fledgling administration. The prime minister wants to lead a mission-led government, one that, at its highest level of ambition, seeks to "secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 – with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country". If successful, that would instantly place Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, as two of the greatest politicians in modern times.
Yet this isn't all Labour intends to do. There is a short-term crisis that requires urgent attention. Reeves made this abundantly clear last month in her statement to the House of Commons. Today, Starmer reiterated the "painful" choices ahead. That is: tax rises and spending cuts to plug a £20bn+ blackhole. At the same time, public services are in a mess. NHS waiting lists are still going in the wrong direction, the prisons are full, the police don't come etc.
In the short-term, it is difficult to see how Labour can simultaneously address the fiscal blackhole and improve public services without raising income tax, VAT or national insurance. In the long-term, it is virtually impossible to see how they will do this while at the same time transforming the UK economy into that of the United States.
Even turning the ambition level down a notch, it is widely acknowledged that the UK government is not good at doing more than one thing at a time. Theresa May found it difficult to focus on her domestic agenda (remember the 'just about managing'?) while also trying to negotiate with the EU and her own parliament. Boris Johnson couldn't manage the Covid-19 pandemic and achieve anything else at all. Yes, Britain fought the Second World War while William Beveridge invented the modern welfare state, but it only went into effect later.
If Labour can go into the next election with voters able to secure GP appointments, prisoners are sat in cells some houses have been built, that ought to be enough. But Starmer has set the bar so much higher. To be fair, the prime minister has spoken of a decade of national renewal. Perhaps overhauling the entire British economy is a second term priority.
