Do think even this early in it's term we are in existential crisis territory for Labour at the moment. Not because of anything they've done per se but because of what has been boiling up for decades.
If you assume that the 'Great Compression' ground to a halt in the mid 70s and started to go into reverse at the start of the 80s we've only had one sustained period of Labour government since. Blair was in charge for most of that and through some clever sleight of hand was able to swerve the underlying issues for the party and the country. However, post the financial crisis, that option to play both ends simply isn't there for Labour. As it is currently seeing, attempting to ameliorate decline for the vast majority simply isn't working. The alternative of returning to it's original purpose of reducing inequality is undoubtedly extremely difficult given the nature of global financial systems. However that seems to me the pretty binary choice it faces.
Post 2008 and Covid, there is no wriggle room or illusory third way anymore, like there seemingly was for New Labour. The bald choice is you are either stewards of rising inequality, hoping that fiddling in the margins will see you as less malevolent and keep you in power, or you stand against it.
For all it's recent troubles I think you can easily make a case that it's less chaotic, malign or irresponsible than previous recent administrations; but that is irrelevant because it simply isn't going to be enough for them as they are finding out.
I think they need to revisit their core position on rising inequality or face irrelevance much sooner than their current parliamentary majority would suggest.
(Once again I feel duty bound to point out that Reform is not the answer. It's the equivalent of having had a couple of figures chopped off in the blender, then deciding to the put your tackle in it).
