Is there anything that he can do to save himself from a disaster? Our panel responds Rorre Stewart, Mariana Mazokato, Chasta Aziz and Alan Venicon

The Prime Minister once loved to indicate that one of the problems in conservative governments was repeated, which generated dozens of housing ministers and dozens of ministers who failed to build prisons or prison repair. He was right. I moved through six ministerial summaries four years ago. I did not know anything about Africa when I became the Minister of Africa. I have just completed my strategy in Africa, and I presented myself to the main African leaders, when I became the Minister of Prisons after nine months, I still know a little about Africa and nothing at all about prisons. No wonder that civil service staff were hesitant to throw themselves behind the radical rethinking of my ambassador’s approach – not the least of which they felt that I would go soon and my strategy with me.

Starmer has now modified his own, which is if anything worse than the Conservative Party did. Cameron William Louty left as foreign minister for four years. Starmer David Lami took, just as he built his relationship with world leaders, and replaced him with someone, Vett Cooper, who was unprecedented in foreign policy. Not all ministers who mastered painfully mastered the complexities of artificial intelligence or luxury system more than a year have moved to their jobs.

Loss of knowledge is not compensated for a new talent. Cameron sent seven ministers of the Council of Ministers in 2014 to Backbenches, to replace them with completely new faces. Starmer changed 10 state secretaries. But he only sent one to Backbenches. Others were simply transferred from one ministerial job to another. He did the same with 20 of his novice ministers. Adherence to the same team in new posts without dismissing the bad and presenting the new ones indicates that the poker player is very afraid of lifting it or folding it. He will make his problems worse if he tries to tamper again.

But the main problem he faces is not individuals. This is the way each aspect of our political settlements – parties, whips and electoral systems – creates all wrong incentives and behaviors.

The best hope for a better government is not another amendment but a constitutional revolution. We must build on the success of the new mayors in Manchester and Birmingham, giving them more freedom to impose taxes and spending and establish their industrial policies. (Here we can learn from both France and Germany) The Australian model of compulsory vote would force policy to pay attention to the marginalized and try to persuade the unlimited center, rather than indulge in extremism. We must benefit from citizens ’gatherings – which, as Ireland has shown, can make a remarkable radical progress that parties often cannot achieve – which will have a democratic legitimacy that we lose from our parliaments.

The government has spent most of its first year in his position in an attempt to attract private investments to the British economy. This means changing planning regulations, “red strip cut”, and recently, the door is widely opened for artificial intelligence companies. But the point should not be accepting any kind of investment. We must give priority to the type of growth that Britain needs: innovation, comprehensive and sustainable.

For example, the Global Investment Summit attracted last fall, mostly controversial financial companies such as Blackrock and Macquarie; The latter is known in Britain for loading the Times water with debts during its completed ownership of the company. Obtaining Amnesty International’s investment in this context is very important, but there are disturbing trends.

This week, the prosperity of technology in the United States of America is an example of organizing technological investment badly. American technology companies pledged to invest 31 billion pounds in the United Kingdom, including Openai, Microsoft, Nvidia and Google, while the government He refuses to exclude Cancellation of digital services tax. This will use external sources for more artificial intelligence capacity through public institutions and the broader economy of American technology companies. With the presence of the Labor Party “the main regular organization in the veins”, we must ask: Do we build AI’s ability for Britain or Silicon Valley?

The work must request clear conditions In addition to the state’s investments – this is what the Biden administration did with the required chips law Semiconductor companies to reduce sharing shares and improve working conditions. In the United Kingdom, That is still 28 In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for Business Investment, and where companies are often financially financial and set priorities for rapid profits For shareholders, we must ask artificial intelligence companies benefiting from government programs to make real investments in the country beneficial to our economy. This type of confidence was presented during Covid when it ended at the University of Oxford, funded by the taxpayers/ASTRAZENECA, to the formation of general goals: exchanging knowledge, maintaining costs and prices under selection.

This is not related to the choice between innovation and organization. Amnesty International means the ruling on artificial intelligence for guidance markets, and not only to open it for “business friendly” contracts. The upcoming Labor Party The conference provides an opportunity to reset this approach. Instead of “cutting the red tape”, the work of artificial intelligence that generates British capabilities and general value needs. the Talk argues Workers must have a role in forming artificial intelligence. like I have recently writtenBritain must explore the general financing forms similar to the BBC licensing fees – which combined artificial intelligence systems that serve public purposes instead of commercial necessities.

For the government that is struggling to bring the public with it, the promising growth by adopting unrestricted artificial intelligence risks the repetition of mistakes that fueled the populist reaction against globalization. When citizens see deals with technology companies while local jobs fail to achieve them in heavy resource data centers, political costs are inevitable. Intelligent Intelligence Governance – with workers ’voices, public ownership risks, visual advantages of societies – provides a radical vision and positive action. By showing that the state can actively form technology for public benefit instead of just accommodating the Silicon Valley agenda, the Labor Party can rebuild confidence that the government is working with ordinary people.

As a member of the Labor Council from the Oxford City Council in October 2023, I boarded a few days after Keir Starmer agreed, then the opposition leader, during a live radio interview that Israel had justified it in cutting water, gas and electricity in Gaza, after the deadly Hamas attacks. Two years later, his government was accused of credibility of collusion in the genocide. The local policy for this is less important than the tremendous suffering that the Gaza people have gone through, but it seems clear that the inaction of this government over Palestine has harmed its credibility in the eyes of many voters.

If there is any way to return, The government must fully reset the United Kingdom’s relationship with Israel and recognize it to the destabilizing force in the region. After all, Israel was accused of killing more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, with thousands of missing and buried under the rubble. Gaza was reduced to barren land and launched attacks on Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Qatar and Tunisia. It is violating blatant international law and should not be considered an ally of the United Kingdom the way it has reached this point.

Starmer can take a paper from European countries such as Spain, whose Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, recently announced that he would prohibit his country’s arms on Israel, and prevent the use of Spanish ports and the air field to transport fuel or weapons to the Israeli army, and comprehensively. Block imports made in illegal Israeli settlements. This is the absolute minimum and this should be done some time ago.

The great political discourse does not sell the position of politics. He shares us in the vocabulary, how to think and talk about our situation, so that we can join the speech in making decisions. Then, we do not buy what the politician offers; We agree with her because we thought ourselves.

Work is poor in doing so. Prime Minister “yesterday” through interviews. The ministers focus on the policy process instead of presenting arguments for a future in which we may all live, and defend their experience and skills in the language of human resources. Social welfare reform has not been discussed, but it was determined as inevitable, as if people could be forced to support a policy without a clear picture of how to live in the world.

Repirming UK has benefited from taking decisive anti -sites: breaking the Orthodoxy, humiliating human resources managers and giving the freedom of the few allowed to stay on the island. The Greens are developing a vital language linking environmental security with greater arguments on housing, jobs and future security. Your party is likely to emphasize the moral vocabulary of war that attract those who are tired of the “practical” positioning policy.

These are parts of the tormented, broken (excessive and dramatic) argument that the country faces with itself, which this government did not contribute to any term, concept, or main description.

What work needs is an ideology: a comprehensive argument that links politics with an analysis of what is wrong in British politics, economics and culture, as well as the principles that determine its response and a picture of a future that we can see ourselves in which we live well. The ministers who argue with politics, instead of just insisting that they are working hard and dangerous, can show the largest image of which they are.

Representatives can search for opportunities to exchange arguments with the main affected sectors: local teachers, trade rooms, NHS employees. All people will not agree, but they will respect treatment such as rational citizens and potential participants in rebuilding society. Of course, this should also happen online, because this is the basic scene of the ideological competition today (where a few of the labor began to understand). Imagine two or three Labor Party deputies with a difference that takes, argue with things in a lengthy YouTube (without fear of expulsion). This would design a good political behavior, call on the masses to think of themselves and connect a picture of life that goes beyond dried management.

Only a minority linked to the reform policy, but it is confident of its arguments for friends, family and colleagues. That is why winning. The Labor Party instinct is to keep members and supporters a distance instead of supporting them to become active representatives of the online parties’ thinking, in a non -communication mode, at work and with friends.

As long as the Labor Party prefers the language of strength, law and administrative necessity, it will lose – and more than that, it will deserve it. The rest of us will have to find our own ways to retreat against what will happen.