The Spectator combines incisive political analysis with books and arts reviews of unrivaled authority.

Subscribe today for just £12 and receive a 12-week subscription in print and online

and get a £20 Amazon gift voucher absolutely free.

Go to spectator.co.uk slash summer.

Hello and welcome to Coffee How Shots, the Spectator's Daily Politics podcast.

I'm Katie Andrews and I'm joined by our editor Fraser Nelson and Phil Collins, who wrote a

column for the Times yesterday, which has everybody talking, feel you write that despite strong polling

numbers, without lots of money to spend, the Labour Party looks lost, void of ideas. Talk us

through your piece. Well, it's always struck me that the Labour Party has a model of change in

government, which really relies on having extra money at its disposal to then spend on social

programmes. And in a time when, as Fraser points out in his response today, we're spending so

much money on servicing debt in the wake of various crises, that puts the Labour Party in a very

difficult position, which is it has to now devise a new way of changing things for the better,

which perhaps rely on the reallocation of the current spending frame or imaginative ways of

changing the world that don't cost money, all of which provides a really deep philosophical problem

for a party, which is quite quite statist and quite reliant on extra funding. And I think that

underlies what it seems to be missing with the Starmer proposal, which is successfully, very

successful politically, in the sense that Starmer's turned around a bad position to a good place,

very likely to become the next Prime Minister, a perfectly competent and putative Prime Minister,

and a competent putative Shadow Chancellor in Rachel Reeves. And yet there's this strong sense that

we don't quite know the flavour of them, and I was trying to get at that. What lies underneath that?

Fraser, you write a rebuttal on coffee house today that despite claims that money is scarce,

...