We often think of Sir Keir Starmer as the dull bureaucrat, all at sea in politics – a Prime Minister who is elevated from the concerns of so many of his colleagues, and who just can’t relate to them. Starmer is certainly a leader on the defensive: pushed around by his backbenchers, rather than the man who delivered a Labour landslide who has then plotted his government’s direction of travel.
If Starmer is judged on his actions, a damning picture emerges of a man incapable of sticking to any one position
But in any meaningful sense, the ‘worthy but dull’ caricature of the PM is plain wrong – and demonstrably so. Starmer may, for example, rightly, be seen as the U-turn PM, but when he performs his reverse ferrets he always (with one notable exception) ends up in the same anything-but-worthy and anything-but-dull place: pushing the policies of the Labour left. Because the point about Starmer that actually matters is a variation on the lawyer/bureaucrat caricature. It’s that he has no political, principled or moral compass, which is why he folds so easily when he is pushed. And it’s why he is far more dangerous as Prime Minister than the misleading caricature.
Take recognition of a Palestinian state. Last Friday, Starmer’s response to the letter by 221 MPs demanding immediate recognition was to reject it on the basis that recognition ‘must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis. This is the way to ensure it is a tool of maximum utility to improve the lives of those who are suffering – which of course, will always be our ultimate goal.’
Given that Starmer always ends up doing the opposite of anything important that he announces, it was obvious that he would soon be announcing recognition. But this U-turn was swift even by Starmer’s standards. Yesterday, just four days later, he announced a ‘wider plan’ – but it was a plan for recognition, in September, rather than one for the ‘lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis’ he had said was a pre-requisite in his earlier statement. Quite the opposite, in fact: in his announcement yesterday he used recognition as a form of punishment beating for the Israelis, saying that if they complied with his various conditions – one of which, a ceasefire, lies in the gift of Hamas – then he would not recognise a Palestinian state, but knowing that all the conditions are placed on Israel, and none on Hamas. It is, literally, a reward for terror: had Hamas not massacred 1,200 Jews on October 7 2003 there would be no Gaza war and there would be no immediate recognition of a (non-existent) Palestinian state. Worthy? Dull? More like amoral and unprincipled.
There has been a similar lack of principle in his approach to welfare. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall was charged by Starmer with coming up with a plan that both saved money and restored the incentive to work, seeking to reduce the incentive to remain on benefits. Her plan was far from perfect, but it was a start – and it did what she was asked to do. But when he faced pressure from Labour MPs, he caved, humiliating Kendall and demonstrating to everyone that he has the backbone of a jellyfish.
Even on a central tenet of his so-called mission for government, he has no principles. If he is pushed, he will fall in the direction of the strongest pushers – who always want to push him towards the left. Exactly the same happened over the winter fuel allowance. It may have been, as the wiseacres have said, politically unwise to stir that hornet’s nest in the first place – but once he committed to ending it, folding when MPs protested was far worse.
There is one notable exception to this pattern, although it remains an example of Starmer collapsing when pushed: grooming – or, more accurately, rape – gangs. For weeks he rejected the idea of a national inquiry, using spurious arguments and sophistry to hold the line that was favoured by the left of his party, for whom it is racist to examine the link between the assaults and the religion of the rapists. But that position was unsustainable in the face of an overwhelming national demand. So he collapsed and announced an inquiry.
Politicians should be judged partly on their words, which matter. But their actions are far more important. If Starmer is judged on his actions, a damning picture emerges of a man incapable of sticking to any one position, lacking in basic principles, willing to do whatever it takes to save his skin and without any moral fibre. Far from being a passing figure who will leave no legacy, Starmer is all the more dangerous for who he really is.
Comments