The obvious way for the Guardian to address the collapse of its business model would be to appoint Seumas Milne as editor and chief executive. I am sure he would have lots of interesting ideas on how to cut out costs and rebuild the relationship with its readers.
Did it make sense to move to Kings Cross and act as an *rent-paying* agent of asset price inflation in the area? Does it make sense to stay there? Should the people who decided it was a good idea in the first place be sacking journalists who had nothing to do with it?
The comment section could be slimmed down *and massively improved* by moving to a model that draws on deep expertise and helps make it accessible to readers, in order to build political agency. Resources could flow back into investigative work - co-produced with readers/members.
All media organisations are instruments of power. Whose interests does the Guardian currently serve? If it concentrated on helping as many as possible of the 40% who voted Labour in 2017 it would attract a highly motivated readership/membership. But there needs to be a reckoning.
The Guardian at the moment often doesn't seem to be on the side of the increasing numbers of people who are being driven to the edge by overlapping crises. Too often it seems to be concern trolling them.
