In democratic countries at least, government is often about getting things done in time. Sooner or later, voters always turn on national leaders and governments fall. Even the most promising policy ideas are left unfulfilled.

With one important exception, this life cycle is usually briefer for Labour governments, since they face more opposition from the media and powerful economic interests, and more suspicion from voters as a result. Despite the party winning three times as many big electoral majorities as the Conservatives over the past 30 years, Labour governments are still seen as unnatural by many people, both outside and inside the party. And without an assumed right to rule, governments age fast.

The speed of the Starmer government’s descent from a commanding election victory to widespread public contempt and now leadership turmoil – a process that began within months – has made the momentary nature of Labour’s opportunities to enact significant change even clearer. Meanwhile, a broader acceleration of politics, driven by digital media, ever more impatient voters and a rapid turnover of Tory premiers – which has weakened the state and strengthened disillusionment with governments in general – has further reduced Labour’s prospects of staying in power for long. Few truly democratic governments anywhere are re-elected now.

So why doesn’t Labour privately assume that it’s likely to lose the next general election and do as much as it can in office, while it can, without worrying so much about the electoral consequences? This may turn out to be an even more important question than who should be its leader.

Yet even to suggest such an uninhibited approach feels like a heresy. The memory of Tony Blair’s........

© The Guardian