There might be more to be said in defence of Labour than many on the left suppose.

True, on the face of it the party seems to be willing the ends but not the means. Rachel Reeves promises faster growth, higher investment and the creation of good new jobs around the country, but without having a detailed plan to achieve any of these and apparently oblivious to the fact that the forces of capitalist stagnation militate against faster growth. These forces aren't just the economic ones of lack of big innovations, ageing population, falling profit rates and so on but also political ones: there's a large constituency of nimbys, financiers and monopolists opposed to faster growth.

Reeves' failure to appreciate the scale of her task is however not a personal failing. Part of politicians' professional deformation is to be over-optimistic about the transformative potential of small policy tweaks, and social democrats have traditionally been over-optimistic and incurious about capitalism. We shouldn't blame Reeves for these failings any more than we should blame the elephant for having big feet: it's the nature of the beast.

She is, however, doing something right. In merely calling for faster economic growth she is facing in the right direction, which could be a preparation to moving in the right direction.

What if better planning regulations and less policy instability don't significantly improve growth? A party that is sincere about wanting this would then have to focus on other obstacles to growth. Failing high streets might require a land value tax to deter landlords from keeping premises empty. High utility bills, in light of Reeves promise to cut household bills, would require tougher regulation - perhaps to the point of driving companies into bankruptcy and the public sector. Poor transport would require harsher penalties for incompetent rail companies and more infrastructure investment. The inability of capitalism to invest might require more socialization of investment along the lines of the original green new deal. And decent trading arrangements with the EU might lead to rejoining the single market.

In these ways, simply trying to solve the problem Labour is looking at might propel the party in a sensible direction.

There's something I've left off this list - fiscal policy.

There's a good reason why the party is promising fiscal discipline. It's that it might well inherit a labour market that is quite tight - albeit not as much so as a few months ago. There's a limit, therefore, upon how much the party can fulfil its promise to create "jobs for plumbers, builders and electricians...for scientists, designers and engineers" merely by adding to demand. Beyond quite a narrow point, any attempt to do so would bid wages up which the Bank of England would see as a reason to raise interest rates. And if that happens, you can say goodbye to hopes of much more housebuilding.

"Bond vigilantes don't exist" as a constraint on how much governments can borrow in recessionary times, such as during the pandemic, but they do exist as a constraint on how much governments can fuel inflation, as we discovered with the Truss Budget.

We all know that the question "where will the money come from?" is asinine imbecility. But "where will the workers come from?" is certainly not. More "jobs for plumbers, builders and electricians" must therefore mean fewer jobs elsewhere.

For now, Labour isn't addressing this question - understandably because it's a nasty one. Traditionally, governments have diverted labour away from some jobs is by raising taxes or interest rates. But these methods might be insufficient. Instead, we might need more radical interventions for example to reduce the bullshit jobs and guard labour arising from private sector agency failures; or the excess labour created by policy failures such as excessive tax and benefit complexity; or the jobs that owe their existence to environmental, risk or intellectual pollution; or those (such as some managers) which exist because of a mistaken ideology.

It is a crude social democratic error to identify policy radicalism with a loose fiscal stance. The truth is that fiscal conservatism is entirely compatible - at least in logic - with economic radicalism.

Again, Labour is at least facing in the direction of sensible policies. It doesn't have a coherent fully-worked economic policy. But it has a hint of a trace of the beginnings of a clue, which is more than can be said for the Tories.

It's in this context that Starmer's support for Netanyahu makes sense. As a description of events in Israel-Gaza it is indefensible. But we shouldn't regard it as that. Nothing Starmer says will make a jot of difference to the region. Instead, he is talking to a domestic audience. Any support for Palestinians would be exploited by the Tories and the media to stoke up a culture war with which to distract attention from 13 years of failure. In supporting Netanyahu Starmer is thus keeping the focus on economics. Which is where it should be, because this might lead somewhere intelligent.

Now, you might think that in saying all this I'm ignoring the advice of my previous post because I'm failing to test my ideas against the empirical evidence. And the evidence that Labour is thinking along radical lines for its third or fourth move is lacking, which is why the pro-capital, anti-welfare Anna Soubry feels comfortable supporting Labour.

This, though, isn't necessarily a clinching argument. It shows that Starmer is succeeding in marginalizing the Tories, in reducing them to a rump of deluded fanatics detached from the real world.

And we must remember that parties never enter office with fully-worked plans. The Tories' 1979 manifesto, for example, made little reference to privatization or to using mass unemployment to smash the unions. It is possible that the clash between the desire to raise economic growth and the reality of sclerotic capitalism will push Labour in the correct direction.

One thing suggests this isn't wholly fanciful. It's Starmer's and Reeves' claims to come from modest backgrounds. Such talk isn't trivial. Your upbringing influences your sympathies, to use that great Smithian idea; this is why many people from poor families remain left-leaning even after making money. Such sympathies suggest that when the chips are down, Labour will pay more heed to the needs of the working class than the Tories would. Its "new deal" for workers rights is a genuine and important difference with the Tories.

I concede that in writing all this I might well be engaging in wishful thinking and clutching at straws, and I'm underplaying the strength of the forces of rentier capitalism opposed to pro-growth policies. What Labour offers is not so much an attractive substantive platform as the possibility of one. But options, even out-of-the-money ones, have some value. Which is more than can be said for the Tories.