The bi-election result proves it; Starmer has failed to meet the moment.

Again and again, Kier Starmer has demonstrated precisely the wrong instincts. Why wait for the May local elections? He should be replaced now. He has done all he can. Some of it will be viewed in hindsight more positively than he is currently being given credit for, but that matters little. He has done too little with the opportunity given to him, and that's what matters most.

Whether it is submitting to Reform's ridiculous suggestion that immigration is the cause of all of Britain's problems, or his strategy of reheating New Labour's pink tory-ism at a time when everyone feels the effects of the great age of greed that came crashing down on our heads in 2008, he has time after time made the wrong calls on the biggest questions. Perhaps it was to be expected from a man who before politics was a career civil servant and lawyer. He inevitably see's the government machine as something to be driven as is, not meaningfully modified or improved by "politicians" who have never been at the coal face of public services. More tragically, he views the great arc of history as something beyond his pay-grade, not for the likes of him to be concerned with. All his policies and achievements in government are united by one overriding theme. They are too small to meet the scale of the challenge before us. Britain is angry with him not because he is a bad man, but because he is re-arranging deck chairs while the ship lists. His timidity makes us all feel adrift in an age of crisis. His smallness leaves a vacuum where leadership should be and makes us all feel afraid of our futures; that is what creates the anger directed at him.

The next leader must represent not just the Country and the Labour Party, but also a clear and meaningful political project. They must represent a clear answer to the great questions of our age. Is individualism still the creed of the moment or do people yearn for more community and connection in a fast changing world? How do we fund Social Care? How do we make housing more affordable? Likewise Energy, Transport and Childcare? The industrial age is ending, but what does a services based future look like in small, northern post-industrial towns? Do we need to repatriate some industry to improve our resilience in an age of crisis, or continue to trust in globalised supply chains? Do we need to stabilise global trade imbalances or let China's "free" trade run roughshod over our people? How do we make social media safe for children and adults alike? Does the state have a responsibility to explore what the internet makes possible for our democracy and the way we govern ourselves? How do we stabilise the Earth's climate and biosphere? How do we make peace with our place in the natural world? For the Labour government to succeed, it's next leader must show the country that Labour has something reasonable and pragmatic to say on these questions. It must show a way forward through the storm.

Starmer and his team turned their backs on many, if not all, of the "larger" ideas of his party leadership bid. Perhaps that was always the plan; say what he had to say in order to win the leadership, then retreat into the little, managerial tweaking that was his always his real creed. They justified this turn, not as outright dishonesty, but as a response the electorate being "tired" of big political projects. That looks more like self-serving nonsense with each passing day. The British people have perhaps grown tired of failed political projects; Brexit, Austerity, the mis-management of the pandemic response even, none have in anyway improved ordinary people's lives, but have instead made them worse in certain concrete ways. But this does not mean people don't want change. The public is clearly desperate for a successful political project, a meaningful change that brings about a positive difference to their lives. Starmer's miserable approval ratings are a clear response to the lack of noticeable change his government has brought about.