Like my colleague William Hague, I hope for the success of the current government. As a voter who leans towards Labour, I believe that the party, when it performs at its best, offers the potential for a robust economy, improved economic equality, increased public investment, and a genuine concern for enhancing the lives of ordinary people—values I find lacking in the Conservatives. This summer, I held expectations that this primarily untested administration could steer Britain away from its decline.

However, I am beginning to have reservations about their capability to fulfill this role.

In response to widespread dissatisfaction, Labour has at last responded, albeit belatedly, to national despair. Their pre-conference briefings aimed to reignite optimism. Rachel Reeves presented her address this week with a sustained smile. Sir Keir Starmer outlined visions of change and a renewed nation, concluding his speech to rapturous applause as he painted a future of secure streets, affordable clean energy, robust borders, and ample housing and healthcare, showcasing an absence of financial worries for everyday purchases.

While optimism is crucially needed, there’s a significant gap in Labour’s messaging: the link between their promised vision for Britain and the actual methods for achieving it. This is concerning; we’ve had enough of hollow assurances after being burned by the Tories. People desire a government that comprehends and articulates how it will meet its objectives. So far, tangible evidence remains sparse.

At the heart of Labour’s commitment is the pursuit of economic growth. Before the election, Reeves reassured a worried business sector that she would lead “the most pro-growth, pro-business Treasury our country has ever seen.” However, Labour’s negative forecasts, talks of tax increases, and a strong focus on enhancing workers’ rights seem to be undermining business confidence. Job vacancies have plummeted by 28% over the past year. James Reed from Reed Employment, one of the largest employment agencies in the UK, cautions that we might be witnessing a gradual decline in the labor market.

Simply wishing for growth does not constitute a real commitment. Every governmental body aspires to achieve it, and expressing a desire is merely a cliché. We require more from Labour’s leadership. For instance, during this week’s interview on Today, Reeves’ responses to Nick Robinson’s questions felt worryingly short on specifics. “What I’m outlining in my conference speech,” she stated, “is the reward if we can restore stability to our economy, and implement pro-business, pro-growth reforms to draw investment back to Britain. That reward entails strong growth, prosperity across our communities, quality jobs with decent salaries, more disposable income for individuals, and enhanced funding for our essential public services, particularly healthcare.”

Reeves has also vowed to deliver 1.5 million new homes, data centers, research laboratories, energy infrastructure, and a national wealth fund designed to foster quality jobs throughout Britain. However, the methods behind delivering safe and appealing housing at scale remain unclear. This week, Labour announced new “planning passports” that would allow housing development to proceed as the norm in brownfield areas, provided they meet local quality and design standards. While this sounds promising, glaring issues remain. The UK is grappling with a significant shortage of construction workers; hundreds of thousands are already needed, and the demand will only increase under Labour’s proposals. How will this workforce gap be addressed? Will it involve the immigration Labour plans to restrict? Will we rely on training workers over several years? The answers remain unknown.

Further complicating matters is the absence of any discussion regarding how these high standards will be enforced. The Grenfell tragedy and the cladding crisis underscored how prevalent deceit is in the building industry and the poor state of its regulation. Reports have indicated that last year, “the average number of defects per new property is as high as 157, nearly double what it was in 2005.” To avoid a resurgence of substandard housing, we will require a substantial number of diligent inspectors unless Labour’s intention is to leave behind a legacy of hastily built and poorly constructed homes.

Reeves also touted the national wealth fund she introduced shortly after July’s election, framing it as a crucial initiative to catalyze investment in green industries. Eleven weeks later, it appears to lack a chief executive, and the fund’s relatively modest scale is concerning. She presents it as transformative, yet its budget of £7.3 billion over five years pales in comparison to investment levels available to Britain in the past when it was part of the EU. For context, the European Investment Bank allocated that amount to major projects in the UK annually, facilitating initiatives such as the Channel Tunnel, the Elizabeth line, and onshore wind projects in Scotland.

Reeves has further ambitions for new high-tech laboratories and energy infrastructure, but Labour needs to clarify how it plans to eliminate the obstacles that have hindered such developments over recent decades. A recent analysis titled Foundations: Why Britain has stagnated, highlighted the stark realities we face. For example, Hinkley Point C, the first nuclear power station in three decades, is four times as costly as similar projects in Europe; HS2’s expenses run four to eight times higher per mile compared to high-speed rail in France and Italy; and Britain hasn’t constructed a new reservoir in 30 years or a tram system in Leeds, a major city with a population of 800,000, while the French have established 21 in the last 25 years.

Neither Reeves nor Labour can resolve these significant issues instantly. However, as we are now two and a half months into a government that spent two years preparing for this moment, Labour’s plans appear unclear or inadequate in essential areas. Starmer claimed he would dismantle exploitation in the boat gangs; yet, no new strategy has emerged, and migrant landings continue at a steady rate. Labour’s stance on our polluted rivers, which Starmer routinely criticizes as a Conservative failure, will not change as the government does not intend to increase funding for new infrastructure or compel water companies to act. The impression of a well-run No 10 is notably absent. Starmer’s popularity has sharply declined, and the Labour Party is as unpopular now as Johnson was during the peak of the partygate scandal in December 2021.

History records numerous administrations that confuse speeches with strategies and proclamations with actionable plans. We require genuine substance, structure, and a clear sense of direction. Labour must address the country’s skepticism.

Daniel Finkelstein is currently unavailable.