ok, overstating for effect and space constraints, but having spent 14 years in adult ed, with 7 in policy, which spanned the New Labour era, there was a zeal for learning "toolkits" and absolute fear that people might go off and find stuff out rather than stick to the programme.
And however much you put "BIG NUMBER" in your statement, you're doing the same thing governments have done since the late 1970s providing access to "Skills" to that people can access "Opportunities" in a Labour Market that you refuse to use the State to reshape for the long term. 
Centrists who accepted all the "economic" arguments of Thatcherism, all the garnish used to dress a project that was about disempowering people and dismantling Social Democracy, will press ahead with it, while babbling about "World Class" and "STEM" and the "Knowledge Economy" 
I'm not prepared to live in a country where ludicrous people try to pretend the 1970s was a bucolic decade of fountains and floral clocks and every high street had a Cheesemaker and and the 1990s was a dark time where you had to huddle round a frothy coffee at Wimpy. In old money 
Other screamingly obvious blind spots:
There's never any consideration with these people that a) providing a breakfast at home might be difficult for timing reasons because of work b) Expenditure on a single item which has a cheap looking unit price is bound up with *all other household spending* 
The people shouting loudest for "patriotism" and waving flags more than you, you fucking charlatan, are calling for White Supremacism, illegal forced deportation of British citizensns and to be allowed to be as racist as they want to be. 
The closest analogue to Rayner is John Prescott, who was the 3rd person to be made Deputy Prime Minister, in a government where there was a power struggle between Blair and Brown and their unelected advisers. Prescott was given the non job to appease Old/Union/Soft Left people 
It's why Johnson was able to stage the ludicrous pantomime of "levelling up," which was against all his instincts and beliefs, because your aim is just to convince people - with your act, that they like - that you're the *type of leader* who will give them what they want. 
Hard not to draw comparisons with the 1930s. Organisations set up to act beyond national government self interest unable to act to save lives and forced to defend themselves from political attack from nation states within "the international community". 
Blue Labour are charlatans just as much as Reform. It could talk about (green, clean) industrial strategy to rebuild a productive base for regional development. It doesn't. It dangles the same promise to bring back an imagined mid 20th Century though "patriotism" and "tradition" 
A "popular, progressive coalition" wouldn't include much of the Labour Party, wouldn't listen to the Centrist commentariat. It wouldn't be led by Central Banker figures. It would be much more like 2017. It would have to attack all the "progressives" who undermined that coalition. 
What is this "it" that you "get". A lot of people who voted Reform want to deport UK citizens for racist reasons. Others want "good jobs round here" for life. Neither of which is "deliverable". Some voted Green because they don't want neoliberalism. What is the common "it" here? 