Daniel Finkelstein

Daniel Finkelstein brings to his columns well-informed thinking, rich historical knowledge, experience of having worked in politics at the highest level and a strong desire to do more than simply reflect mainstream opinions. His pieces have heft intellectually and politically and often strike out in a direction that others have not taken.

His column on the Israel-Palestine situation was written more than a month after the October 7 attacks and the start of military operations in Gaza. Many thousands of words had already been written by columnists on the conflict: what Finkelstein set out to do was to avoid binary tribalism and plead that each side at least listen to the other's arguments, accepting matters of fact and conceding points of opinion where necessary. It was a powerful column arguing that without that process there was scant hope of peace.

In April, Finkelstein examined the implications of the promise made by Wes Streeting, the then shadow health secretary, that Labour would shake up the NHS with "a decade of change". The customary assumption, he said, is that it is easier for politicians of the left to do something right-wing, such as reform the NHS; conversely, Richard Nixon's overtures to Communist China are commonly thought to have been possible because he was a Republican. But drawing on his deep knowledge of US politics, Finkelstein showed that Nixon's move actually alienated the Republican right. Did Keir Starmer really understand what Streeting was getting the party into and the potential for conflict with core supporters and the medical profession, he asked?

In June, just over a week before the general election, Finkelstein wrote a considered assessment of Starmer's politics, based on the fact that, born just three days apart, he and the future prime minister had led parallel political lives, witnessing, taking positions on and often involving themselves in the same political controversies for decades. Starmer, Finkelstein noted, had been consistently more left-wing than him throughout those decades, yet he was now presenting himself to the electorate as much closer to the centre. Once again resisting kneejerk tribalism, Finkelstein's portrait of Starmer was perceptive and revealing.