The problem is compounded by McSweeny, and now poor Yvette Cooper (who I used to quite like) trying to out Reform Reform.
Deciding that a bunch of protesters with paint are "terrorists" rather than simple criminals was a desperate move. Splitting up UK families through Kafkaesque immigration hurdles is just cruel. No one would vote for that (event the sociopathic demographic). Even in the US the average Trump voter thought it would be about criminals, not fruit pickers.
But the point here is that they'll never out-reform Reform. The Tories (who really are cruel and borderline sociopathic) couldn't do it, so the Labour party stand no chance, and will massively alienate the centre.
Given money is so tight (it is), Starmer should devise a strategy around a "better, fairer, Britain". Higher taxes on digital behemoths profits - perhaps as a VAT supplement on business with turnover in excess of some amount to reduce avoidance. Voting reform to go along with HoL reform. Making social media responsible for their output, lounge every other publisher in the country. Giving real teeth to ombudsman & regulators (after having fired the entirely captured management). Scrapping overnight leasehold (or at least ground rent) in favour of commonhold. Sure, there are some very rich people who won't like it, but they don't have many votes, and it won't cost the Treasury a penny.
There is so much that could be better without a big bill. People feel disenfranchised because in many cases they are. Corporate bodies, both state and private, are unanswerable to anyone, content to sit in their tepid baths with their guaranteed income streams.
A fairer Britain needs to be more redistributive, but that doesn't necessarily mean more tax. It could simply be levelling the playing field between vested interests and the millions who don't have any choice
Great piece. On lack of vision / ideology / political narrative, it was interesting that Starmer, pushed by Nick Robinson this morning to name the story he is trying to tell, talked about fairness. Hard to tell how much thought has gone into this, but this could actually form the basis of an ambitious, even radical, reforming project with strong popular support. More at https://www.faircomment.co.uk/p/a-mixed-report-card-labours-first
Fine piece, though unsurprisingly, given that the writer is a professional communicator, there was perhaps an over-emphasis on comms. Perhaps Labour needs an over-arching, major project, for example revising and simplifying the tax system. This definitely needs doing, and would set the direction of travel *for the nation* for long after the fall of this and subsequent governments, as will their planning reforms. This is a Good Thing. It would also be a chance for Reeves to raise tax in a transparent way, rather than fiddling around at the edges, getting all the grief and not much money. I mean, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
It would also be nice to see some aggressive defence of unpopular measures, rather than "we're terribly sorry, but we had to do (whatever it was)." There also needs to be more vigour -- aggression -- in the attack on Reform. After all, their main project, Brexit, has been a total failure and Farage is a deeply divisive, known grifter. Their proposals, such as they are, have been ludicrous and need to be exposed as such. And so on -- in sum, Labour need to believe in themselves, no more pussyfooting around, take the battle to them, be they Tories or Reform. Oh, and cap party financing. Because unless they pul;l themselves together, the radical right will be in charge from 2028 and God help us all if that happens.
The degree to which McSweeney influences the party, as an unelected component, who clearly has a large degree of influence over, and I mean over, Kier Starmer irrespective of what the PM claims about his confidence in his chief of staff, needs discussing further.
Reeves imprisons herself in fiscal rules. She can unshackle herself and be bold tackling across-aisle dissent, if she is doing the right thing, After all she claims she is now, and it's not working.
The ludicrous refusal to make more meaningful ties with the EU to bring about the growth they se desperately want, is just that, ludicrous. Any sensible capitalist, scientist, person interested in their own self-preservation will examine the data to hand and realise that more of the same doesn't change the outcome.
Good analysis, Lewis, with two lacunae. Labour's celebratory reaction to a huge majority that two thirds of voters didn't support was hubristic. Labour should use its majority to say a government with only 32% support is a systemic failure: we must have electoral reform, now. Secondly, Labour should say Brexit has failed. The Leave vote was based on lies. Rejoining the single market and customs union, and eventually the EU, is essential to economic growth and a sustainable future.
“The Brexit vote was based on lies”. All politicians lie : remember the 1.5 million homes, fastest growth rate of the G7, getting illegal immigration under control, only raising £8 Bio in taxes…..
By far the biggest curse hanging over British politics is Brexit, yet Starmer seems unwilling to take any meaningful steps towards dealing with the damage. He could do wonders for his own popularity, if not by rejoining the EU, at least reconnecting with the SM and CU. There would be an immediate economic boost, and a surge in support among those under 60.
Excellent analysis as ever, Lewis. Starmer seems to me to be a good general manager, not a CEO, and both he and Reeves have the political instincts of a lampshade. I'm sure a better comms team might help, but as Starmer seems prepared to say whatever his comms team shove into his hand ("island of strangers" was appallingly ill-judged), the new comms team would have to have a moral and political compass much more attuned to the electorate than the current team. Would you trust Starmer's judgment to pick that team? Again and again he makes exactly the wrong choice, the one that alienates moderate left-leaning voters. I sense the hand of Morgan McSweeney in this - his determination to head off a Reform threat has resulted perversely in making Labour look like sad Reform wannabes. His 'success' in getting Labour elected seems overblown to me - Labour could have run on a platform of national yoghurt-making and still won. It was the Tories Wot Lost, not Labour's scintillating opposition. Can they learn from Mamdani and the new landscape of vertical video? I very much doubt it. Who would they put up? Is there anyone on the front bench with even the slightest riz?
Angela Rayner. If such a thing as working-class charisma exists (John Prescott; Neil Kinnock; Dennis Skinner; Barbara Castle; Nye Bevan; Betty Boothroyd; Shirley Williams though she was born quite posh!) she's got it.
Excellent overview. I hope they take notice of even a slither of this advice.
I have been a Labour member since 1998 and my fellow lefties infuriate me a lot of the time.
The left has major problems communicating in clear, relatable terms and ditching the language of the seminar. I go to Labour events, and I think 'just talk normally, for goodness sake!'. Starmer (who I think is a decent man) is often an atrocious communicator. He seems ill at ease answering any questions. Reeves (someone I think is clearly very intelligent and able) is equally robotic. Having two people in the two top jobs who are this poor at articulating a vision (does one exist?) is a major, major disadvantage. It means voters have stopped listening. Just as they did with Sunak, and that spells the end.
Too much of the left is also incapable or unwilling to see politics through the eyes of the average voter or indeed from any one's else vantage point. A worrying number of members of the PLP seem to think they are there to be local activists/campaigners — pitting themselves against central government. This feeds the anti-politics narrative. If a Labour MP is basically saying that the government does not get it, then why should voters support Labour. This has always been an issue on the left, but Corbynism catalysed it further and his presence is still there among restless backbenchers.
Can Starmer turn things around? I do not know. He clearly has a capacity to learn on the job — he did that well in opposition. But as PM, when the stakes are higher, I am really not sure. You can change all the advisors and social media and grid plans and this and that, but *he* needs to reinvent himself. That is hard for anyone, let alone a bloke in his 60s.
I am very fearful for the future of this country if things keep on like this. Labour are potentially gifting the country to Reform — who are basically the Johnsonian Tory party in new clothes. The Tory party may seem dead but the reality is it just being reincarnated as Reform — watch all the Tory special advisors and ex MPs jump ship if they get a whiff of power.
Labour has to be bolder and learn from the populists (left and right). Better and relentless self-promotion. Pick winnable fights. Break some things — accuse others who oppose of being the 'establishment'. Endless social media. Big, oversold real-world, policies that are relatable and not wrapped up in bureaucratic jargon.... anyway, we know what they need to do... do *they*? And can they do it?
People say Labour shouldn't try to out Reform Reform. I agree that they need to steer clear of adopting nasty rhetoric and legitimising misinformation. But the reality is many voters that Labour needs *do* care and worry a lot about immigration. So it's easy for us lefties/centrists to put our fingers in our ears but it won't change the reality.
To his credit I think Starmer does get this and his flirtation with blue Labour reflects the fact he realises he needs to reach out beyond the core Labour voting block.
Many of his MPs though won't allow him to do this.
One example was the welfare debate - which yes was massively mishandled plus the bill was about cost cutting rather than properly helping people into work. But scratch the surface and what was clear is there are many Labour MPs who basically do not believe in *any* welfare reform. Some effectively said so. They act like activists - not members of the governing party.
Whilst I agree with your overall analysis, I do think that the masculine culture of politics, that discounts emotions also has to go...
"There has been a fair amount of comment about how tears in public should not be considered a failing. Perhaps, but politics is what it is and the market reaction is what it’s been. She knows what a profound misstep it was."
Crying due to a personal issue being seen as a "misstep"...? They are human beings, whether we agree with their recent actions or not. And I don’t agree with their current direction, as a Labour voter.
I agree, but it’s a good example of the tail wagging the dog thinking that Lewis is describing. The decent thing to do (if they knew how the Chancellor was feeling) would have been for them to say “sit this one out and we’ll explain later“ and eff anyone who waded in with an ill informed hot take. But the galaxy brains in comms were presumably terrified of the hot takes (and Starmer alas was too momentarily caught up with being him to catch it) and hung her out in public. There was nothing wrong with what she did, but to force her into the public at such a time was so unproductive and unnecessary.
I'm glad they still have 4 years to turn the tanker around. Yes its been grim and the nonsense had drowned out the good stuff they have done to date. 4 things need to happen.
1. McSweeney needs to go. All roads lead back to him
2. Bold messages, Labour need to break from not attacking Brexit, name the harm its done. They also need to distance themselves and name fascism taking place across the pond. It will create space between them and the Reform fascist lite project
3. Reeves needs a mentor and to stop listening to the clowns in the treasury who advised her about winter fuel and benefit cuts that not even the Tories would touch. Gordon Brown or someone from Biden's economic team would help giving sound advice. She could even get on the blower to Mark Carney
4. Just put national insurance up. Reverse the harm Hunt did in his final year. The situation has changed. Therfore we must change. She needs more dosh to play with. Just do it
The constant pandering to Reform and their voters, the Red Wall is and will be the undoing of this Starmer government. The strategy and the comms have been abysmal. Welfare reform is needed but making the neediest suffer the most is all wrong. Same could be said for Winter Fuel. These along with 2 child benefit and major reform to NHS could have been going on in the background instead of grabbing the wrong headlines. Same with the Home Office and immigration. This government has done the wrong things, pandering to the wrong people. Making the wrong noises.
VAT on private schools another big mistake. Again it's pandering to the people who just like to blame others for their own inadequacies.
There's no overall big picture strategy. Decide what the aim is, what it looks like... sell it to people and then create the polices and actions to achieve it. Rejoining the EU is the obvious 'no-brainer'. Let people see what it would help achieve.
This is very good. But while you do a great job describing both problems and solutions, aren’t the solutions all variants of “Starmer needs to stop being Starmer“?
If he doesn’t believe this stuff matters, is he going to use the recess to do any of it?
Its an excellent piece. If I were in the Cabinet - I would workshop the enemies - e.g. landlords, blockers to growth, water companies, rail companies, bankers etc etc - develop a narrative around how they are going to take them on in the name of the 'hard working and ripped off Briton'.
I would hold onto growth - use the majority to force through otherwise intractable investments - nuclear power stations, on shore wind farms, and dare I say it housing on the greenbelt - be like Trump have the courage to say your saving Great Britain and fu*k it I'm doing it - I am fixing things.
Spot on the reshuffle point - too many old timers. Need some new people with shiny new ideas - people who can ask the draft question and get things done.
Finally -get some comms people in - if they think they have them - get those people out.
Interesting analysis, you did not talk about reversing Brexit, reversing hated Tory policies, reforming democracy or taxing the rich - any one of these would ensure a second term, all four could put us back to Cool Britannia.
You are basically correct about the awful alternative if Labour fails, but perhaps not clear enough. Farage represents a fundamental move away from the democratic liberal politics we have enjoyed for about 200 years. His model is that of the authoritarian regime in Russia, and his actions would mirror those of Trump. Without a written constitution, we would only have the King to protect our freedom of action and speech and right to choose our government.
You would like Keir to be a lot bolder. Many of his supporters would too but it is not in his nature and experience shows that cautious people often come unstuck when taking risks. My suggestion is that he needs to strengthen his team, bringing in people like Andy Burnham and experienced campaigners and writers. The right support would help to compensate for his deficiencies and allow his virtues to show through. It could be our only hope.
Is Labour's decision to proscribe Palestine Action just at a time when the party is dangerously unpopular, particularly amongst young people and other ethnic groups, the biggest indicator yet of how incredibly stupid and tin-eared the party is?
The proscription has the same staggeringly clumsy hallmarks as FreebieGate and cutting disability benefits. It's as if the party is reasoning that 'it's ok to do really (really) appalling things in office because it will somehow be balanced out by e.g. bringing NHS waiting lists down or because people will vote for us anyway when it comes to the crunch'.
You don't have to be a psychologist to see how dumb these notions are. The party's naivety will be its and the UKs tragic undoing.
The problem is compounded by McSweeny, and now poor Yvette Cooper (who I used to quite like) trying to out Reform Reform.
Deciding that a bunch of protesters with paint are "terrorists" rather than simple criminals was a desperate move. Splitting up UK families through Kafkaesque immigration hurdles is just cruel. No one would vote for that (event the sociopathic demographic). Even in the US the average Trump voter thought it would be about criminals, not fruit pickers.
But the point here is that they'll never out-reform Reform. The Tories (who really are cruel and borderline sociopathic) couldn't do it, so the Labour party stand no chance, and will massively alienate the centre.
Given money is so tight (it is), Starmer should devise a strategy around a "better, fairer, Britain". Higher taxes on digital behemoths profits - perhaps as a VAT supplement on business with turnover in excess of some amount to reduce avoidance. Voting reform to go along with HoL reform. Making social media responsible for their output, lounge every other publisher in the country. Giving real teeth to ombudsman & regulators (after having fired the entirely captured management). Scrapping overnight leasehold (or at least ground rent) in favour of commonhold. Sure, there are some very rich people who won't like it, but they don't have many votes, and it won't cost the Treasury a penny.
There is so much that could be better without a big bill. People feel disenfranchised because in many cases they are. Corporate bodies, both state and private, are unanswerable to anyone, content to sit in their tepid baths with their guaranteed income streams.
A fairer Britain needs to be more redistributive, but that doesn't necessarily mean more tax. It could simply be levelling the playing field between vested interests and the millions who don't have any choice
Autocorrect-correct: "event"=only, "lounge"=like
Great piece. On lack of vision / ideology / political narrative, it was interesting that Starmer, pushed by Nick Robinson this morning to name the story he is trying to tell, talked about fairness. Hard to tell how much thought has gone into this, but this could actually form the basis of an ambitious, even radical, reforming project with strong popular support. More at https://www.faircomment.co.uk/p/a-mixed-report-card-labours-first
Fine piece, though unsurprisingly, given that the writer is a professional communicator, there was perhaps an over-emphasis on comms. Perhaps Labour needs an over-arching, major project, for example revising and simplifying the tax system. This definitely needs doing, and would set the direction of travel *for the nation* for long after the fall of this and subsequent governments, as will their planning reforms. This is a Good Thing. It would also be a chance for Reeves to raise tax in a transparent way, rather than fiddling around at the edges, getting all the grief and not much money. I mean, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
It would also be nice to see some aggressive defence of unpopular measures, rather than "we're terribly sorry, but we had to do (whatever it was)." There also needs to be more vigour -- aggression -- in the attack on Reform. After all, their main project, Brexit, has been a total failure and Farage is a deeply divisive, known grifter. Their proposals, such as they are, have been ludicrous and need to be exposed as such. And so on -- in sum, Labour need to believe in themselves, no more pussyfooting around, take the battle to them, be they Tories or Reform. Oh, and cap party financing. Because unless they pul;l themselves together, the radical right will be in charge from 2028 and God help us all if that happens.
The degree to which McSweeney influences the party, as an unelected component, who clearly has a large degree of influence over, and I mean over, Kier Starmer irrespective of what the PM claims about his confidence in his chief of staff, needs discussing further.
Reeves imprisons herself in fiscal rules. She can unshackle herself and be bold tackling across-aisle dissent, if she is doing the right thing, After all she claims she is now, and it's not working.
The ludicrous refusal to make more meaningful ties with the EU to bring about the growth they se desperately want, is just that, ludicrous. Any sensible capitalist, scientist, person interested in their own self-preservation will examine the data to hand and realise that more of the same doesn't change the outcome.
Good analysis, Lewis, with two lacunae. Labour's celebratory reaction to a huge majority that two thirds of voters didn't support was hubristic. Labour should use its majority to say a government with only 32% support is a systemic failure: we must have electoral reform, now. Secondly, Labour should say Brexit has failed. The Leave vote was based on lies. Rejoining the single market and customs union, and eventually the EU, is essential to economic growth and a sustainable future.
“The Brexit vote was based on lies”. All politicians lie : remember the 1.5 million homes, fastest growth rate of the G7, getting illegal immigration under control, only raising £8 Bio in taxes…..
Hard agree.
By far the biggest curse hanging over British politics is Brexit, yet Starmer seems unwilling to take any meaningful steps towards dealing with the damage. He could do wonders for his own popularity, if not by rejoining the EU, at least reconnecting with the SM and CU. There would be an immediate economic boost, and a surge in support among those under 60.
Try not to be ageist. There are many over 60 who fought against and are horrified by Brexit. And plenty of younger ones who didn't and aren't
Very true - I’m 67 myself and was sufficiently appalled by Brexit that I moved to France!
Excellent analysis as ever, Lewis. Starmer seems to me to be a good general manager, not a CEO, and both he and Reeves have the political instincts of a lampshade. I'm sure a better comms team might help, but as Starmer seems prepared to say whatever his comms team shove into his hand ("island of strangers" was appallingly ill-judged), the new comms team would have to have a moral and political compass much more attuned to the electorate than the current team. Would you trust Starmer's judgment to pick that team? Again and again he makes exactly the wrong choice, the one that alienates moderate left-leaning voters. I sense the hand of Morgan McSweeney in this - his determination to head off a Reform threat has resulted perversely in making Labour look like sad Reform wannabes. His 'success' in getting Labour elected seems overblown to me - Labour could have run on a platform of national yoghurt-making and still won. It was the Tories Wot Lost, not Labour's scintillating opposition. Can they learn from Mamdani and the new landscape of vertical video? I very much doubt it. Who would they put up? Is there anyone on the front bench with even the slightest riz?
Angela Rayner. If such a thing as working-class charisma exists (John Prescott; Neil Kinnock; Dennis Skinner; Barbara Castle; Nye Bevan; Betty Boothroyd; Shirley Williams though she was born quite posh!) she's got it.
Excellent overview. I hope they take notice of even a slither of this advice.
I have been a Labour member since 1998 and my fellow lefties infuriate me a lot of the time.
The left has major problems communicating in clear, relatable terms and ditching the language of the seminar. I go to Labour events, and I think 'just talk normally, for goodness sake!'. Starmer (who I think is a decent man) is often an atrocious communicator. He seems ill at ease answering any questions. Reeves (someone I think is clearly very intelligent and able) is equally robotic. Having two people in the two top jobs who are this poor at articulating a vision (does one exist?) is a major, major disadvantage. It means voters have stopped listening. Just as they did with Sunak, and that spells the end.
Too much of the left is also incapable or unwilling to see politics through the eyes of the average voter or indeed from any one's else vantage point. A worrying number of members of the PLP seem to think they are there to be local activists/campaigners — pitting themselves against central government. This feeds the anti-politics narrative. If a Labour MP is basically saying that the government does not get it, then why should voters support Labour. This has always been an issue on the left, but Corbynism catalysed it further and his presence is still there among restless backbenchers.
Can Starmer turn things around? I do not know. He clearly has a capacity to learn on the job — he did that well in opposition. But as PM, when the stakes are higher, I am really not sure. You can change all the advisors and social media and grid plans and this and that, but *he* needs to reinvent himself. That is hard for anyone, let alone a bloke in his 60s.
I am very fearful for the future of this country if things keep on like this. Labour are potentially gifting the country to Reform — who are basically the Johnsonian Tory party in new clothes. The Tory party may seem dead but the reality is it just being reincarnated as Reform — watch all the Tory special advisors and ex MPs jump ship if they get a whiff of power.
Labour has to be bolder and learn from the populists (left and right). Better and relentless self-promotion. Pick winnable fights. Break some things — accuse others who oppose of being the 'establishment'. Endless social media. Big, oversold real-world, policies that are relatable and not wrapped up in bureaucratic jargon.... anyway, we know what they need to do... do *they*? And can they do it?
Cont.
People say Labour shouldn't try to out Reform Reform. I agree that they need to steer clear of adopting nasty rhetoric and legitimising misinformation. But the reality is many voters that Labour needs *do* care and worry a lot about immigration. So it's easy for us lefties/centrists to put our fingers in our ears but it won't change the reality.
To his credit I think Starmer does get this and his flirtation with blue Labour reflects the fact he realises he needs to reach out beyond the core Labour voting block.
Many of his MPs though won't allow him to do this.
One example was the welfare debate - which yes was massively mishandled plus the bill was about cost cutting rather than properly helping people into work. But scratch the surface and what was clear is there are many Labour MPs who basically do not believe in *any* welfare reform. Some effectively said so. They act like activists - not members of the governing party.
Whilst I agree with your overall analysis, I do think that the masculine culture of politics, that discounts emotions also has to go...
"There has been a fair amount of comment about how tears in public should not be considered a failing. Perhaps, but politics is what it is and the market reaction is what it’s been. She knows what a profound misstep it was."
Crying due to a personal issue being seen as a "misstep"...? They are human beings, whether we agree with their recent actions or not. And I don’t agree with their current direction, as a Labour voter.
I agree, but it’s a good example of the tail wagging the dog thinking that Lewis is describing. The decent thing to do (if they knew how the Chancellor was feeling) would have been for them to say “sit this one out and we’ll explain later“ and eff anyone who waded in with an ill informed hot take. But the galaxy brains in comms were presumably terrified of the hot takes (and Starmer alas was too momentarily caught up with being him to catch it) and hung her out in public. There was nothing wrong with what she did, but to force her into the public at such a time was so unproductive and unnecessary.
I'm glad they still have 4 years to turn the tanker around. Yes its been grim and the nonsense had drowned out the good stuff they have done to date. 4 things need to happen.
1. McSweeney needs to go. All roads lead back to him
2. Bold messages, Labour need to break from not attacking Brexit, name the harm its done. They also need to distance themselves and name fascism taking place across the pond. It will create space between them and the Reform fascist lite project
3. Reeves needs a mentor and to stop listening to the clowns in the treasury who advised her about winter fuel and benefit cuts that not even the Tories would touch. Gordon Brown or someone from Biden's economic team would help giving sound advice. She could even get on the blower to Mark Carney
4. Just put national insurance up. Reverse the harm Hunt did in his final year. The situation has changed. Therfore we must change. She needs more dosh to play with. Just do it
The constant pandering to Reform and their voters, the Red Wall is and will be the undoing of this Starmer government. The strategy and the comms have been abysmal. Welfare reform is needed but making the neediest suffer the most is all wrong. Same could be said for Winter Fuel. These along with 2 child benefit and major reform to NHS could have been going on in the background instead of grabbing the wrong headlines. Same with the Home Office and immigration. This government has done the wrong things, pandering to the wrong people. Making the wrong noises.
VAT on private schools another big mistake. Again it's pandering to the people who just like to blame others for their own inadequacies.
There's no overall big picture strategy. Decide what the aim is, what it looks like... sell it to people and then create the polices and actions to achieve it. Rejoining the EU is the obvious 'no-brainer'. Let people see what it would help achieve.
This is very good. But while you do a great job describing both problems and solutions, aren’t the solutions all variants of “Starmer needs to stop being Starmer“?
If he doesn’t believe this stuff matters, is he going to use the recess to do any of it?
Its an excellent piece. If I were in the Cabinet - I would workshop the enemies - e.g. landlords, blockers to growth, water companies, rail companies, bankers etc etc - develop a narrative around how they are going to take them on in the name of the 'hard working and ripped off Briton'.
I would hold onto growth - use the majority to force through otherwise intractable investments - nuclear power stations, on shore wind farms, and dare I say it housing on the greenbelt - be like Trump have the courage to say your saving Great Britain and fu*k it I'm doing it - I am fixing things.
Spot on the reshuffle point - too many old timers. Need some new people with shiny new ideas - people who can ask the draft question and get things done.
Finally -get some comms people in - if they think they have them - get those people out.
Interesting analysis, you did not talk about reversing Brexit, reversing hated Tory policies, reforming democracy or taxing the rich - any one of these would ensure a second term, all four could put us back to Cool Britannia.
You are basically correct about the awful alternative if Labour fails, but perhaps not clear enough. Farage represents a fundamental move away from the democratic liberal politics we have enjoyed for about 200 years. His model is that of the authoritarian regime in Russia, and his actions would mirror those of Trump. Without a written constitution, we would only have the King to protect our freedom of action and speech and right to choose our government.
You would like Keir to be a lot bolder. Many of his supporters would too but it is not in his nature and experience shows that cautious people often come unstuck when taking risks. My suggestion is that he needs to strengthen his team, bringing in people like Andy Burnham and experienced campaigners and writers. The right support would help to compensate for his deficiencies and allow his virtues to show through. It could be our only hope.
Is Labour's decision to proscribe Palestine Action just at a time when the party is dangerously unpopular, particularly amongst young people and other ethnic groups, the biggest indicator yet of how incredibly stupid and tin-eared the party is?
The proscription has the same staggeringly clumsy hallmarks as FreebieGate and cutting disability benefits. It's as if the party is reasoning that 'it's ok to do really (really) appalling things in office because it will somehow be balanced out by e.g. bringing NHS waiting lists down or because people will vote for us anyway when it comes to the crunch'.
You don't have to be a psychologist to see how dumb these notions are. The party's naivety will be its and the UKs tragic undoing.