Surely this is, as much as anything a matter of professionalism. I’ve conducted many open staff meetings, some at difficult times. You can anticipate the top 20 questions you will be asked and prepare a response. The response should be respectful, as informative as possible even if not popular.

I’m actually 60. But otherwise ….

It’s not an unreasonable premise for a piece but it doesn’t deliver.

It relentlessly focusses on the person, partly by claiming that it won’t, and skates too thinly over the policies.

A serious critique would be useful to help people make informed decisions, but it isn’t here.

Comments now open!

Agreed. And wanted to leave such a comment on The Times website but they appear to have closed comments on this piece. I guess they know their readership!!

I read the piece & was broadly pleased to see it in The Times and from a Tory (not ignoring your point). But I was puzzled as to why a clearer link wasn’t made to policy-making in the Conservative and Reform parties. And is the term ethnonationalism relevant for this type of “woke right” ideology?

So would Starmer. Apparently.

Catch 22. No ambassador will be acceptable to Trump who has slagged him off, no ambassador will be acceptable to anyone else who hasn’t slagged him off.

If you were to believe BlueSky (the BBC is biased to the right) and X (the BBC is biased to the left) I am one of the few loyal listeners to the BBC and mainly R4!

Agreed.

Yes, below the line comments are so depressing. I think that whilst The Times (not the Sunday) has a reasonable variety of commentators, in the last couple of years its constant (right wing) editorialising in “news” pieces has ruined it.

Indeed. Have you read Lewis Goodall’s piece today where he talks of the absolute confidence that some on the right have that there perspective is objectively correct and that they are unbiased and represent “ordinary working people”? Interesting insight.