I don't wish to take the piss, but I know you don't believe that governments treat their manifestos as Holy Writ, never to be deviated from, to be implemented entirely and absolutely, and nothing else shall happen.
Labours' manifesto is beige, but here's the thing - it's very blank-sheet-of-paper nature allows all manner of things to be explored after the election. Added to which, stuff is just going to happen - like Thames Water teetering on bankruptcy, which is going to have to be addressed in the first months of the next government, and the private sector solutions aren't exactly queueing up, so don't be surprised if it ends up in public hands somehow.
The manifesto isn't beige because they couldn't think of anything to put in it, it's beige to a) give the Tories/their media nothing to attack, and b) to give a Lab government maximum freedom of movement over the next five years.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you think I think they have a secret plan to be Corbyn 2.0, but I genuinely believe that they are far less hostile to public ownership and big, heavy levers of power than most seem to think.
The original post I replied to was actually the opium fuelled one about raising 'taxes and push the money into public services, while nationalising some key ones to raise performance and reduce cost' rather than to any inherent hostility to public ownership or something to do with big heavy levers of powers ( circa Workers Girder).
I don't think they necessarily have a red line over some
form of state intervention/ nationalisation in exceptional circumstances, after all they have a half hearted pledge to bring some elements of the railways nearer in house , although given what you say that may not happen. The Tories themselves 'nationalised' Transpennine Express etc and the Blair govt 'nationalised ' Northern Rock , so state intervention cannot be ruled out. However is it a core method of intervention or a default policy by Reeves and Starmer, well no, in fact, quite the opposite.
Labour's GB Energy project sets the tone. It's billed as a publicly owned, Scottish-based national energy company however when asked if it was an energy company that would actually be producing power to pump into people's homes Pat McFadden admitted GB energy isn't an energy company at all, but is actually a finance company designed to generate private sector investment.
Labour's manifesto may partly be beige not to give the Tories/their media anything to attack ( although ironically labours manifesto is so beige its actually supported by a number of Tories) however Labour's economic strategy is clear and set out and it has been drafted after a huge number of meetings with the private sector over the past two years. They've met with most of the top 300 companies , attracted a large amount of donations from the private sector , more than they have from Trade Unions, and the backing companies have provided staff to Labour to work on these plans. Investment in the public sector will be led by the Labour Government's British Infrastructure Council. Set up by Labour , it is a group of UK-based and international investment firms including Santander, Lloyds ( which includes Halifax etc) , HSBC, Phoenix Group and Fidelity International and even BlackRock, with a role to 'unlock' private capital. All this was in the Bloomberg article I posted and the FT. It's PFI mark 2.
It's a clear economic strategy with clear economic beliefs and private sector backing after several years of discussions, hence the backing of the FT /Economist etc and, despite your belief, I find it hard to believe that this is going to be torn up for some unannounced and unplanned 'Labour government maximum freedom of movement' in which the sky is the limit.