UNDETERRED by its total lack of a mandate to rip up England’s judicial system, Keir Starmer’s government seeks to do exactly that.

Whatever concessions were made to the left in the Budget on social security, it remains intransigent in its assault on democracy: through its ban on direct action group Palestine Action as “terrorists,” through its amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to further restrict protest rights, and through its attempt to withdraw the age-old right to trial by a jury of one’s peers rather than a state-appointed functionary.

That’s because it hasn’t faced the scale of revolt against its authoritarian overreach that it has on welfare, at least in Parliament. In the summer a fraction of the number of MPs who revolted against disability cuts took a stand against banning Palestine Action.

In a field where the government does have a clear mandate — its Employment Rights Bill — it shows far greater timidity, making concessions to employers and Tory, Lib Dem and (sadly) Green peers determined to gut it of all meaning.

Evidently, it feels more pressure to give ground than from the trade union movement to stick to its promises.

Majority opinion across the unions is opposed to the government’s economic policy.

The two biggest, Unison and Unite, both slammed the Budget for refusing to tax the rich and instead imposing a “stealth tax” on lower earners, by freezing the tax band thresholds.

Unions recognise far greater investment is required in public services to put them back on their feet, with the National Education Union threatening an indicative strike ballot if the government doesn’t address the schools funding crisis and the Fire Brigades Union warning continued austerity is not an option with climate change driving more extreme weather events.

Since the government can be forced to change course — as it was on disability cuts or the two-child cap — the question is how we can exercise maximum leverage.

Here, Keir Starmer’s unpopularity is a factor. The Prime Minister continues to face grief over the Budget, with a concerted effort to force out Chancellor Rachel Reeves, which could make his own position untenable.

That cannot be ruled out, but the consensus at Westminster is that a challenge is more likely in six months after the local elections. Labour’s polling is so dire that nobody thinks these will be anything but a disaster.

Few in Labour are minded to challenge for the leadership now, and be held responsible for what happens in May. But talk of a challenge in May is ubiquitous: hardly anyone believes Starmer has the vision or political antennae to save Labour from oblivion at the general election.

The recent deputy leadership contest was a stitch-up: the window for signing up nominating MPs was truncated and the candidates were too similar in outlook for a serious policy debate to take place.

The deputy leadership is unimportant compared to a contest to succeed Starmer, which would propel the winner straight into Downing Street. Waiting for such a contest to be called, and then opting (or not) for the least worst option on the table, disarms us when we should be setting the terms of the debate now.

Publicly insisting that the government restore day-one employment rights, and offers a clearer timetable for introducing electronic strike balloting and removing Tory ballot thresholds, would create a context in which Downing Street hopefuls would have to offer this to win union endorsements.

Likewise, a public-facing campaign against the attacks on protest rights and jury trials could easily win significant support across the Labour membership, who as things stand will still make the final decision on any new leader.

Ambitious MPs are likely, well within the year, to need to court the labour movement and Labour members. They should know they need to commit to specific policy changes to win support.