The Labor Party had a theory to gain power, but nothing about how it was used

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

At leaving to celebrate the departure of Raf Atawal, the former treasury official who wrote the statement of the 2024 party, there was speeches from various ministers of the cabinet, but it was Ed Miliband who stole the show. He praised athwal for his role in doing something very little of people at all – writing a statement that ends with the wins of the employment. The authors of winning work data – whether they are Michael “climbing merit”, or, as Miliband mentioned his fans, brother, David – continues great things. But it is rare. As Miliband said, he should know: One of the losing allocations wrote to Gordon Brown in 2010, and he was the front man for another in 2015.

Miliband is not ashamed to make jokes at its own expense or spend time in small gestures of kindness, which helps to clarify the reason, despite his role in two defeats, as he is a minister in the cabinet most influential in Kiir Starmer. (The other reason, which is less tempting for everyone, is that he possesses a very rare commodity around the cabinet table: a dangerous grip on what he wants to do with his ministry and a strong feeling of how to do so.)

One of the drivers of dark mood and places in the work government and around him is, just one year after the time of the party in his post, almost everyone believes that the author of the Labor Party statement 2029 is likely to end up simulating Miliband, not a third. Representatives complain that the Downing Street operation was able to be excessively obsessed with the four -year elections (at the expense of focusing on politics here and now), while it was on its way to loss. As one member puts it: “We have Consigliere in wartime … but we are losing war.”

Although many of the agenda of the Starmer government policy is very far from Blaryite, the Labor Party won by defeating the ground collapse a year ago because they re -discovered some of the old facts of Tony Blair, not the least of which is the value of its first advice to the defeated parties: “Start with a sincere analysis of an opposition reason.”

In this result, Starmer and its boss, Morgan Mcsweeee, reached a flawless theory of labor failure: the party was seen as very radical, non -national, and accountable to play quickly and people’s money. As a result, a loud star labor has been adopted as restrictions on what he would do on taxes, and rarely appeared, if any, anywhere without Jack Union to serve as a background.

But the elections are not just referendum on the alternative to the current concern, although they certainly helped conservatives in 2010, over the decade and a half last year, the work alternative was unattractive. They are also defined by what the government today did. While the Labor Party, under the leadership of Starmer, has developed a good theory on the reason for their opposition, they have never settled on one of them about the reason for the conservatives remaining in office.

Lack of interest in the real meat of politics is part of the reason for the government’s difficult now. Perhaps more focus has pushed the party to ask whether it is really good to make many decrees that transmit self on taxes?

At a recent meeting in Downing Street, Liz Lloyd, the new head of the government’s policy, dismantled some of those present by asking about the party’s wealth taxes and their impact on the task of their growth.

This was seen as heresy, because it implicitly had some doubts about the approach the party followed during the campaign. The belief that Rishi Sonak’s position for a short period with a non -rotating pledge may not be a good comparison of decreasing tax revenues and the UK’s attractiveness as a destination in which to work and invest in investment.

Likewise, the government follows policies on immigration that restricts growth and puts more pressure on the sick social welfare sector in the country.

One reasons for not being present last week due to the changes in social welfare is that it is clear that he had no political justification for them – an absence that worsened by the fact that the deputies, who were already afraid of their seats in the upcoming elections, had a less motivation to communicate with the proposals.

The first year in his position was badly in office because the party has never developed a theory of positions, rather than only obtaining it. Time is running out for them to develop one soon enough to be any use of this aspect of the upcoming elections.

If they do not do that, the author of the next statement must start growing their line in jokes that now deny the self.

[email protected]