Here are some unsolicited initial thoughts on the Starmer shadow cabinet. WARNING these thoughts contain positive reflections on Corbyn's Labour, so look away now if you find that too unbearable. (1/n)

Inevitably a load of Corbynites have been sacked. That was inevitable and, yes, weakens the Labour left. But the Labour right has fared even worse. Ian Murray as Scottish minister (obv, he's Labour's only MP in Scotland) and Rachel Reeves as the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster.

(Be honest, did you even know that post existed before Rachel Reeves was appointed to it?)

Starmer's is a thoroughly soft left shadow cabinet. Compare it to Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet, which reflected the obligation to include rightwingers in key positions. Reeves was DWP, Ed Balls was shad Chancellor, Yvette Cooper was Home Sec.

No longer is it considered mandatory for the Labour leader to pay lipservice to the party's right. This is one of the consequences of Corbynism, and it is how we have ended up with a leader who is on the right of Ed Miliband appointing a more leftwing shad cab than Miliband did.

Another positive consequence of Corbynism is that it moved some on the soft left to the left i.e. those who sympathised with the hard left but were concerned about electability. This group now believe that many policies previously considered too radical are, in fact, popular.

These members on the soft left are people the hard left can work with. They back public ownership, take equalities seriously, and they correctly regard climate change as the biggest existential threat facing us. In other words, Corbynism has given the soft left more coherence.

(I'm going to get hell for saying that, I know it, but I think it's a good thing and I'm not trying to throw shade. It was just a matter of moving the goalposts in terms of what was considered electable. Don't hate me for saying it!)

So yes, in theory, this all sounds good and harmonious, but remember that the Labour right don't like anyone being in charge but them, so expect a lot of anonymous briefings and shady shit. Plus KS will be under pressure from the press and other forces to move to the right.

This means there is a risk of him drifting rightwards, which would be disastrous because it will mean his leadership will lose coherence, and you can't win on an incoherent platform. It's vital he sticks to his pledges, uses them to formulate a vision and communicates it clearly.

For the left who want to stay in the party, I think it's our role to put pressure on KS to do this and to be a counterweight to the right. I worry if we don't, Labour will experienced delayed Pasokification. I think there are plenty on the soft left we can work with. [ENDS]