Tom McTague’s Cover Story articulates a damning array of evidence and criticism, levelled at the Prime Minister and others. The question is: what next? There are several reasons for delay on the part of Labour MPs. Some are mentioned in the article, but seasoned MPs will also know that voters hate split parties and factions and infighting. Besides, another leadership contest would feel like more of the same. Something Keir Starmer appears not to have grasped is that the glorious election landslide was not a vote for Labour but a vote against the shambolic and corrupt and disastrous past. He seems to have sleepwalked into the same pattern.
Restive MPs are no doubt waiting for the May elections before they declare what needs to be done. But we need an unopposed candidate to minimise the disruption. Two things are vital: we need a leader who is an excellent communicator (Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting), and one who can inspire through clarity of vision and definite ideas for the future.
Ann Lawson Lucas, Beverley, East Yorkshire
Starmer’s original sin
If Keir Starmer had already been on the right trajectory, the Mandelson affair would not be the final straw for voters and backbenchers alike. Labour should have understood the hope invested in its victory – something that was skilfully managed in 1997. This time, the first news to cut through was the curtailment of the winter fuel allowance, a policy that saved little money but set the tone. This was followed by Rachel Reeves’s hair-shirt passion for fiscal rules.
When Labour loses Wales, the land of Nye Bevan, who will it blame?
Felicity McGowan, Cardigan, Wales
At what point does history begin? When Mandelson was appointed in 2025? I think we have to look much further back. What has become known as the “original sin” – Starmer appointing Mandelson – has its preconditions long ago. Starmer held the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the UK needed a Trump-whisperer and that Mandelson, flawed or not, was the one.
Why did we need such a person? Because we needed trade with the US. Why was that? Look around the globe. British manufacturers cannot afford to trade with our nearest neighbours now because of EU regulations. We knew that before 2016, but still voted to leave. We are a tiny speck in a world that depends on international trade.If those preconditions had not existed, Mandelson would not have been needed.
Starmer should go. But I think he’s an honest, ethical man. He is a bureaucrat in the guise of a politician. He claims the Foreign Office was not permitted to reveal the results of the vetting to the person who would make the appointment, leading to the Prime Minister being “economical with the truth” in parliament. It gets more like Yes Minister every day. I just wish it had a comedic aspect.
Joan Friend, Oldham
Something fishy going on…
At a time when, as indicated by the contents of your latest issue, there are many potentially Earth-shaking issues to be considered, it may seem trivial to spring to the defence of Gentleman’s Relish, traduced by Will Dunn, but here I go. For the avoidance of all possible doubt, I have not and have never had any commercial, professional or financial connection with the producers of this essential food, which isn’t revolting if used properly. If you like anchovies, you’ll like Gentleman’s Relish. As with Marmite, use it sparingly. It goes very well, for example, on toast with smashed avocado. Is it really to disappear? I can’t help but suspect this is a cunningly devised PR story to move raise awareness. When, I wonder, was it last mentioned in the New Statesman, for example? Cynical? Moi? How very dare you.
Timothy Beecroft, St Albans, Herts
Polarised by Polanski
As a lifelong, 70-year-old Labour supporter, albeit very open to tactical voting, I find myself becoming Green-curious. For me, Ailbhe Rea’s article raises three important issues that Zack Polanski needs to address before the general election.
Regarding his tendency to cite the “smell test” – intuition is important for a politician (indeed, Starmer’s greatest fault may be his lack of it). However, it must be balanced by evidence and understanding.
Very much related to that is the question of economic competence. I need to be confident that the Greens have a serious economic agenda.
I like the idea of a political leader who listens and has the capacity to change. However, that has limits. Why should I vote for a leader who appears to change with the wind? We need a clear expression of principles, in order to understand the direction of policy and against which to judge decisions made.
Dr Richard Crombie, Hutton Roof, Carnforth
In Ailbhe Rea’s profile of Zack Polanski, she describes modern monetary theory (MMT) as controversial. MMT is not a theory; it is a description. It merely describes how money is created in an economy with a fiat currency and a central bank. It describes the UK economy.
Once politicians accept the MMT description of money creation then different policy options become available to them. Until then, we will continue with the “fully funded” nonsense much loved by the media and the opposition. A national economy is just not like a household, despite what Margaret Thatcher claimed.
John Oldroyd, Isle of Colonsay, Scotland
The interview with Zack Polanski suggested that he was drawn to join the Liberal Democrats in 2015 because of their ongoing commitment to wanting to change the first-past-the-post voting system. Hang on a minute. Nick Clegg managed to negotiate, as part of the coalition deal in 2010, a referendum on AV, which the devious Tories were able to stymie in 2011. The horse had already bolted on the prospect of moving away from a first-past-the-post voting system and thus this reason cited by Polanski for joining really doesn’t pass the smell test.
Michael Haskell, Broughton, Flintshire
That’s some Gaulle
Peter Hitchens claims, “I think I can count myself as the inventor of British Gaullism”. He is wrong. Peter Shore got there before him. Shore was described by William Wallace in a House of Lords debate in 1998 as the only British politician to reflect the views of Jean-Pierre Chevènement. Chevènement was a left-wing champion of De Gaulle’s legacy in French politics, with his Eurosceptic and Gaullist views. In Kevin Hickson’s 2020 biography of Shore, there are repeated references to his idiosyncratic left-wing nationalism and his espousal of the Gaullist views, set out by Hitchens, on patriotism, strong armed forces, rigorous education and a powerful law-and-order system and welfare state. Shore’s career could be described as “British Gaullism”, beginning on his entry to the Commons decades before Hitchens’s “conversion”.
Neil Stretton, Penrith, Cumbria
You don’t win friends with salad
I was dismayed to read Finn McRedmond’s thoughts on the popularity of expensive salads in the City of London. This week, the news has included shocking statistics showing the declining state of the nation’s health compared with similar countries. There is a difference of 20 years of healthy life between those living in deprived and more affluent areas.
“You know someone was paid to write that,” writes McRedmond, regarding a Salad Project tagline. Was she paid by the tobacco marketing board or the junk-food industry to write her article?
Ruth Guthrie, Brigham, Cumbria
No quick fixes
Rachel Cunliffe is right that we need a rethink on how we support people through ageing. But buying insurance to pay for traditional care, owned by private equity firms with opaque finances, won’t “fix” social care. Changing the range of what’s on offer just might. The Shared Lives “Live More” scheme, which builds relationships to support carers and people living with dementia, helping prevent crisis-driven admission to a care home, is one example of an alternative approach.
Frances Hasler, Seaford, East Sussex
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[Further reading: Keir Starmer puts his fists up]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 29 Apr 2026 issue of the New Statesman, The cover-up?
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment