Tom Harwood: Is Keir Starmer pretending to be more centrist than he actually is?

Keir Starmer's 14,000 word, 29 page essay on the state of the Labour Party is finally out there for us all to read.

On the eve of Labour conference, a hefty new mission statement has been put together, reportedly for Labour members to digest more so than the public at large.

Entitled The Road Ahead, it concludes with ten new principles for the party, from the truly revolutionary statement that,

"If you work hard and play by the rules you should be rewarded fairly"

to the oh so incredibly specific pledge that,

"We will always put hard-working families and their priorities first".

I'm fairly sure David Cameron used to use that "hard working families" line.

Is it too much to ask that with 14,000 words some greater specifics could have been arrived at by the end?

What's your policy? 'Our policy is to put your priorities first!'

It's a nothing statement. A catch all designed to mean everything to everyone and ending up meaning nothing at to anyone all.

Oh well, despite this bland - that's the essay not the Labour leader I should be clear - despite it being mainly made up of painfully plain platitudes it has nevertheless sparked a great deal of controversy.

News aggregator Politics For All claims it was sent three angry messages from Keir Starmer's team after leaking the tome. Including one threat.

The essay is unlikely to be read in full by many - not even Labour members. So why did the Labour Leader reportedly spend 'months' working on it?

The reason can be deduced from the reactions of Starmer's critics - particularly the huge backlash that has been sparked on the left of the party.

Buried within those 14,000 words is the quiet but clear abandonment of many of the promises Sir Keir made on his journey to become Labour Leader.

Perhaps he thought that nobody would notice.

Putting people to sleep with an unnecessarily lengthy mission statement isn't a bad strategy to sneak out U-turns.

Whatever the reason, the U-turn is clear.

His essay clearly states that "the role of government is to be a partner to private enterprise, not stifle it."

This marks a clear shift away from nationalisation - that all of us with a rudimentary understanding of economics can appreciate.

Yet this is what Keir Starmer wrote in his ten point pledge card to Labour members last year.

Common ownership: Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

Corbynite then, practically New Labour now. Backing nationalisation then, opposing it today.

I welcome this apparent bait and switch, I really do.

But my worry is can we be sure as to who is being played here.

Did Starmer mislead his membership to become Labour Leader - pretending to be more left wing than he is.

Or is he now misdirecting the public in order to become Prime Minister - pretending to be more centrist than he really is.

It's impossible to know.

With U-turns like these who knows what he would be saying as soon as he hypothetically got his party across the Downing Street finish line.

Perhaps he thinks the era of conviction politics is over. Faced with a U-turning government Starmer has political cover.

I just think it's a sorry state of affairs to befall both our major parties.