It’s fair to say that nobody was expecting anything new or startling from the Labour manifesto. While other parties need to innovate to capture attention and drive interest, a dominant (and sustained) lead in polling means Keir Starmer and his team simply need to not make any mistakes.

If you are a Labour supporter (as many in higher education have historically been) the absence of radical ideas and what is seen as a continuation of ideas that have persisted through 14 years of Conservative government can be seen as off-putting and vague. People have talked fondly of the ambition of the two Corbyn-era manifestos, not least the totemic policy to abolish tuition fees and bring back grants.

A leadership promise to that effect from Keir Starmer was one of many discarded as a part of the surprisingly quick transformation of Labour from a party of protest to a party of power. Though these shifts have annoyed many partisans, they have put Labour on the brink of a record-breaking Commons majority and the ability to get things done. So – let’s put aside what the manifesto could have been and analyse what it is.

There is a surprising amount there for higher education.

We certainly were not expecting a near-restatement of the Robbins principle – that every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university should have their aspiration supported. Once an orthodoxy, it has been a long time since we heard a government commit to this idea, or to action on university access.

And there are hints towards more radical plans for the sector – an integration with further education that recognises different roles for different providers (not different systems!). Regulation will be strengthened, there’ll be work on how learners move between providers, and work on “teaching standards” (not “low quality” or “rip off” courses).

The promise that gets the most attention is to act to create a secure future for higher education – that supports universities in delivering for students and the economy. This is vaguely sketched, but could be read to point to a review of the current funding settlement, which – Labour admits – does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, and students.

The sector also features in a section on foreign policy – as one a group of “globally respected institutions” (along with courts and the BBC) where Conservative attacks have “undermined soft power and diminished influence”.

“Skills England” will unite business, training providers, unions, and government in workforce planning around the industrial strategy. It will work with the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to align training with labour market needs.

Labour says it will reform the apprenticeships levy into a “Growth and Skills Levy”, as previously trailed, to support investment in other forms of skills provision and employee training.. Skills England will have a role in identifying eligible courses.

A youth guarantee for 18 to 21 year olds guarantees access to training, an apprenticeship, or support to find work (including an improved careers offer and two weeks of work experience) – funded by drawing together existing funding and entitlements.

As a part of an overarching focus on economic growth, Labour proposes ten-year budgets for key research and development institutions, allowing universities to enter meaningful partnerships with industry and support spin-outs and other innovative ideas. This comes alongside a parallel promise to simplify procurement and end “micro-management”.

There’s a role for the sector in environmentally sustainable approaches to energy independence. Universities also have a new, statutory, role in Local Growth Plans (a kind of souped up LSIP that amounts to local economic planning) with a focus on identifying and supporting – via programmes and infrastructure – growth sectors.

What’s missing? For me the big ones are international students, and student maintenance (although you could read the latter into the wider interest in the current financial settlement). But it is surprising that positive language on international soft power is not backed by a commitment to the way in which this is often brought into action: international recruitment and partnerships.