In his dismissive review of Keir Starmer’s premiership (Cover Story, 17 July), Tom McTague seems to have become “cursed with [the] mist of forgetfulness” he derides in others. After the general election of 2019, few believed it possible for Labour to win back power in a single term, yet Starmer secured a 172 majority in 2024, gifting several hundred Labour candidates the opportunity to become MPs and make a difference to the country. Given that Labour’s vote share was just one third of the electorate, this was a remarkable tactical achievement by those leading the campaign, and Starmer deserves credit for this and for a manifesto that breathed life and hope into a devastated public realm.
Only two years in, we can already see significant improvements in health, education, energy, justice, housing, immigration and incomes. These achievements deserve to be acknowledged and celebrated.
Roger White, Churchill, North Somerset
Off the scale
Tom McTague’s article on the great forgetting (Cover Story, 17 July), with its litany of short-term prime ministers, reads like a short story. However, I disagree with Tom’s view that social democracy is not a guiding moral calling. It is. It’s why the Finns are prepared to spend huge amounts on defence. They understand that social democracy must be defended because it carries with it a set of values that are at the core of a good society: pluralism, equity in public services, respect for the rule of law. It’s also worth remembering that though he derided the notion of vision, Keir Starmer argued more than most that the UK should be part of European social democracy.
John Bangs, London SE10
In his otherwise excellent Cover Story, Tom McTague uses the phrase “the enormity of the challenge we face”. He meant “enormousness”, or better still “magnitude”. Enormity, properly, means morally outrageous. Sadly, this misuse is being perpetrated more often, even by those who should know better, risking the useful correct meaning being lost. Could I ask Tom to learn the distinction and then, as editor, prevent repetition of this affront (which is, to be fair, not an enormity) to readers who care about the language?
Alan Parker, Shirley, Croydon
In defence
Dr John O’Dowd finds a logical inconsistency in John Bew’s assertions that the Baltic states feel threatened by Russia and that the war in Ukraine is going badly (Correspondence, 17 July). I feel the apparent inconsistency can be resolved by the old adage “size matters”. The Baltic states together would make up a small fraction of Ukraine, but are three times larger than the Crimea. If Putin were a logical man, he might well conclude that he bit off more than he could chew with the whole of Ukraine, but that the Baltic states would provide a tasty morsel. I think all of us are right to fear Russian aggression under Putin. We should be prepared to be taxed accordingly.
Chris Wright, Tweedmouth, Northumberland
Dr John O’Dowd believes that if Russia’s war is not going well there is no argument for increasing defence spending. I believe he is wrong. In a fractious and increasingly factional world the UK needs to be ready for the unexpected, which includes an unreasonable, possibly war-losing Putin.
Jane Archer, Shrivenham, Swindon
Gods of folk
I wholeheartedly agree with Andrew Marr on music, football and God (At Large, 17 July). I too prefer Shostakovich to football and I love being part of a mingling of generations and classes with communal singing. Marr should try attending one of the wonderful folk festivals around the country, from Sidmouth to Warwick, Bromyard to Shrewsbury, Whitby to Shetland and beyond. Lots of quality music and singing, and I don’t remember any mention of God or monarchy.
Chris Mcilwaine, Cheshire
Maintaining progress
Tom McTague’s moving account of his grandparents (Editor’s Note, 17 July) centres on a compelling question: would his grandparents have been able to build similar lives today? The point is not whether we can recreate the world they knew. Society has changed too much for that. The question is whether we still offer the same opportunities for people to transform their lives.
Many of their generation endured real hardship, yet they came of age in a society that expanded security and opportunity through decent work, affordable housing, strong public services and the conviction that a child’s origins need not determine their destiny. What has been lost is not simply a way of life, but confidence in the future. The challenge for politicians is not to restore the past, but to rebuild the conditions in which people can once again believe that where they begin need not determine where they end.
Federico Forni, London SW15
I was taken with Tom McTague’s family histories. So many of us have stories of challenging family background and eventual progress. My own father was the first graduate from his coal-mining family and we owe so much to that breakthrough.
As the war-time generations die out, we are told that it is more important than ever to remember their efforts and sacrifice. But it is equally important to remember the collective and individual efforts that those generations made in bringing about social progress.
The right’s current response to social matters is to drive people up a cul-de-sac of grievance and prejudice. The left needs to keep its discipline and have a relentless focus on social progress for all. We owe this to our previous generations who fought so hard for equality of opportunity in all spheres of life.
Mike Gibbons, Cartmel, Cumbria
No place like home
Hats off to Anoosh Chakelian (Bursting the Bubble, 17 July) for reminding us that housebuilding should be about making homes for people in places with access to jobs, transport, schools and green space. We used to call this planning. But planning has now become a byword among politicians and the media for bureaucracy and delay, and among the public for allowing nasty things to be built.
If Andy Burnham is serious about place-making, now is the time to reimagine the visionary garden city approach that, as Shaun Spiers rightly points out in the same edition (Correspondence), delivered three phases of 32 postwar new towns and cities. At the same time, we must genuinely engage with communities to understand their needs and tap into their local knowledge, so that we can build homes in the right place at the right scale. Only then might we deliver the homes we need, and avoid a repeat of the 1950s subtopian “outrage” described so vividly by Ian Nairn.
Trevor Cherrett, Devizes, Wiltshire
The good royals
Oli Dugmore should be careful of conflating the behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten with that of the entire royal family (Left Hook, 17 July). In his eagerness to argue for his republican cause, he somehow suggests that Charles, William and all the working royals are tarred with the same brush as Andrew. I would argue quite the opposite: they are, as I see it, thoroughly decent folk and serve their country well.
His argument that “hereditary power encourages a culture in which status becomes evidence and confers a credibility unavailable to others” holds water in Andrew’s case because he has always been happy to use, and indeed abuse, his power as a royal. I would argue that’s not the case with the majority of the royal family. Good luck to them. Not for all the privileges and money would I care to do their job.
Keith Strachan, Molesey, Greater London
Great publicity
Now that we are all northern, may I suggest a trip up north to visit the excellent Grayston Unity in Halifax for Beer and Sandwiches?
Mark Mckay, Halifax
We reserve the right to edit letters
[Further reading: The take over]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 22 Jul 2026 issue of the New Statesman, The Take Over
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentOli always comes across to me as a manchild in his broadcasts and writing.When did senior politicians not use subterfuge to sway the masses towards voting for them and then point to the impracticalities of implementing manifesto promises ? Was Starmer really as bloody in intent in supporting Israel as Thatcher over sinking the Belgrano as peace talks commenced? Student debating politics can indeed take you high in Parliament ,witness Kemi Badenoch vacuously emoting like a sixthformer,but for a colummist to be taken seriously you have to have lived a longer life to reflect upon the gap in performance between serious endeavours to better your fellow man and those obstacles which thwart your ambitions (an empty treasury,crazy leadership of your closest ally,wars,energy crisis, and diplomatic isolation from your neighbours gifted by the electorate).
Starmer was an unlucky and hapless PM and Andy Burnham scented blood of a weakened prey, not amorality. So dance awhile but be ready for disappointment wrapped up as compromise.