Steve T

Here's an extract from my Mail column, 'Starmer is my 13th Prime Minister - and the first I've despised. He is a small man doing huge damage, and every day he remains in power is a worse day for Britain': dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic… I have worked with and written about politicians for over 35 years. And of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power during that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others - and disagreed with many. But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics - at heart a noble profession despite the opprobrium it attracts. And I have always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards - even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits. Sir Keir Starmer is – appropriately - my 13th prime minister. And for the first time in my life I do not merely disagree with the head of government - but actually despise him. Starmer has brought shame on himself and his government this week by recognising a Palestinian ‘state’ without first placing any preconditions on Hamas or indeed the Palestinians. The Prime Minister has not only rewarded terrorists for a massacre but capitulated to his party’s fear of sectarian Muslim politicians. If that was the only charge against him it would be damning enough. But it is merely the latest and most egregious proof that he is simply not fit to occupy the office of Prime Minister. Starmer is usually portrayed as a dull technocrat – a man trying his best but whose main problem is that he is temperamentally not up to the job. In truth, this is a profound miscalculation. The 63-year-old is not some ingénue but rather the most dangerous prime minister in living memory. After barely more than a year in office he has shown just how harmful he is. Look at the crazy arrangement to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, for no other reason than that his fellow lefty human rights lawyers think our use of the Diego Garcia miliary base is an example of modern colonialism. The issue with the Chagos Islands is telling - and not just because it is so dangerous for our security to hand over a site of vital strategic importance. ...Starmer’s defence of the deal has further exposed how he has taken the use of political lies to new depths. The PM still refuses to admit that it is costing us £35 billion – at least – to hand over the islands and then rent back Diego Garcia. He portrays himself as some sort of plain dealer but in reality his stock in trade is obfuscation, deception and – yes – deceit. Or take his handling of the recent Mandelson affair. It is surely inconceivable that Starmer’s explanation of what went wrong is entirely true: that all was fine with Lord Mandelson until new evidence of his revolting fondness for the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein suddenly emerged, hitherto unknown to the PM. And Starmer has consistently dissembled when it comes to our defence, too. In June he was busy trumpeting the rise in defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. But he then tried to disguise the fact that even this paltry increase would not happen until 2027, as if Britain could somehow pause the world’s conflicts for two years. Then at last week’s Chequers press conference with Donald Trump, Starmer beamed as the president said: ‘I want to congratulate the United Kingdom on making the vital commitment to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence at the Nato summit this year.’ That is indeed what he signed up to. But it is meaningless...because he has not even set out how to move to 3 per cent to begin with. All Starmer has said is that 3 per cent – the lowest possible sum needed to pay for the recommendations of the government’s own defence review - is an ‘ambition’. While the Prime Minister has been clear about the need to support and defend Ukraine, it would be more admirable if he was prepared to spend over the current derisory 2.3 per cent. But with spending not even reaching 2.5 per cent for another two years, his words are utterly cynical. His support for Ukraine amounts to nothing more than hot air – and he knows it. One of the many reasons he has no money to spend on defence, of course, is his pusillanimous retreat over welfare spending. In June, having told the then Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, to reduce the bill, he committed his third U-turn in one month following the winter fuel payments and grooming gangs inquiry fiascos, by reneging on the cuts. Starmer pulled the rug from under Kendall’s feet after economically illiterate Labour MPs exploded in fury over her proposals for a minuscule reduction to the £313billion welfare bill. Starmer may have a mighty parliamentary majority of 148 seats but he acts as if he is leading a minority government in thrall to the hard Left. (Little wonder that his personal ratings are floundering at -42 per cent, matching Rishi Sunak’s rating after the D-Day catastrophe.) It is a Westminster truism that Starmer has no political skills, which has led to such humiliating capitulations over welfare and grooming gangs. But it is less commented on that he is a coward. If Starmer had a backbone he would, like Thatcher or Blair before him, decide what he stood for and actually lead. Instead, he allows himself to be pushed around by backbenchers like the empty vessel he is. That was evident in one of his first acts in government. He talks proudly about how he ‘settled’ the junior doctors’ pay strikes. But a two-year-old child could have settled it as Starmer did – by caving in and handing over a 22 per cent pay rise without asking for anything serious in return. It was entirely predictable what would happen next – and it has. Those same doctors, having seen how easily Starmer gives in, are now striking for yet more money. And the rest of the public sector unions have learned from these retreats: Starmer folds under pressure. Two weeks ago, for example, the London Underground was halted for nearly a week by strikes from drivers who already earn a small fortune but can smell the stink of weakness that wafts around the prime minister. Starmer’s record is disastrous across the board. But in few other areas has he been so blatantly destructive as in education. The imposition of VAT on school fees has forced the closure of at least 54 independent schools, with more to come, an act of pure spite. Worse than that, however, is the unravelling of three decades of bipartisan reforms to state schools. Starmer is doing the bidding of the teaching unions, the most destructive force in education, and destroying many of the academy freedoms that were the foundation of the transformation in standards, pushing instead a return to failed centralisation and local authority control. Towering above all this, of course, is his disastrous economic legacy. As Lord Wolfson, CEO of high street store Next, put it last week, growth is being held back by ‘declining job opportunities, new regulation that erodes competitiveness, government spending commitments that are beyond its means, and a rising tax burden that undermines national productivity.’ Starmer and his incompetent Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, are presiding over a fiscal car crash. Inflation is now 3.8 per cent (nearly double the 2 per cent target) and borrowing is out of control and getting worse. The national debt rose by £18 billion in August alone. Debt interest is over £100 billion a year and exceeds spending on health, transport, defence and most other areas. Serious observers say we may be heading to a crisis requiring a 1976-style IMF bailout. The charge sheet against Starmer is not that he is simply the clueless prime minister of an awful government - though he certainly is. It is that he has not once come clean with the public about any of the crises he and his government have engineered and has no conception of how to lead. He is a small man who is doing huge damage, and every day he remains in Downing Street is a worse day for Britain.