‘Keir Starmer repeatedly failed one test – I know first-hand’ | Politics | News

I am surprised by Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that he is a man of principle. Principled politicians may be right or wrong, but they are guided by a consistent set of beliefs. Starmer has shown no such consistency. Instead, his career was characterized by self-interest, U-turns, and a constant failure of judgement. When Labor came to power, Starmer announced that economic growth would be his top priority. But his government’s actions pointed in the opposite direction. Businesses have faced higher employment costs, opportunities for young workers have diminished as millions of young people become NEETs (not in education, employment or training), but I also place some of the blame on previous Conservative governments for not adequately addressing this issue. Investments decreased and economic confidence weakened. Rhetoric promised growth, reality brought stagnation.

The way he handles public appointments tells a similar story. After backing Peter Mandelson to the post of UK Ambassador to the US, one of Britain’s most important diplomatic posts, Starmer later sought to distance himself from the controversy that inevitably followed. Responsibility is embraced when appropriate and rejected when politically costly.

It is possible to see the same model in welfare policies. As welfare spending continued to expand relentlessly, retirees faced the possibility of losing their winter fuel payments; this increased by £20bn, taking the annual cost of benefits and out-of-work support to £333bn.

Starmer’s personal conduct in office has also not reflected the high standards he often preaches. The “free door” controversy struck at the heart of his carefully cultivated image of honesty. As millions of families struggle with the cost of living, Starmer and senior ministers have been revealed to have accepted luxury gifts worth thousands of pounds, including designer clothes, expensive glasses and hospitality funded by wealthy Labor donor Lord Alli.

The sums involved were less important than the symbolism. A Prime Minister who asks the public to tighten their belts cannot appear content to enjoy privileges financed by wealthy philanthropists. The episode revealed a striking gap between Starmer’s rhetoric and judgment. It wasn’t illegal, but it revealed a political ear of considerable proportions.

The same lack of judgment was evident in the government’s approach to Britain’s farming community. A proposed inheritance tax raid on family farms has sparked outrage in rural Britain. Generations of farmers who had been busy building businesses and managing the countryside suddenly found themselves facing uncertainty about whether their children would be able to sustain their livelihoods.

But after widespread protests, public outrage and sustained political pressure, the Government backtracked and significantly increased the tax-free threshold. Once again, Starmer was not directing events but reacting to them. The pattern is familiar: announce first, think later, retreat when reality intervenes. There was no discernible philosophy behind these decisions; there was a series of contradictory gestures designed simply to appease conflicting interests.

But my concern about Sir Keir goes deeper than policy disagreements. Judiciary is about accountability and justice. As Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer has become one of the most prominent advocates of a criminal justice culture that prioritizes belief over evidence. In the wake of the Savile scandal, institutions in Britain succumbed to a moral panic. Starmer wasn’t just a spectator; It helped shape the atmosphere in which allegations were often viewed as evidence.

His insistence that false allegations are extremely rare contributed to a dangerous shift in thinking. Police forces took heed of the message. The result was the abandonment of traditional investigative skepticism and the emergence of cases such as Operation Midland. I know the consequences very well.

The Metropolitan Police publicly declared Carl Beech’s allegations to be “credible and accurate” before a meaningful investigation could take place. My house was raided. My reputation was destroyed. My life has been turned upside down. I, along with others, including the late Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and Sir Edward Heath, have been subjected to public suspicion of the most heinous crimes possible without evidence.

Subsequent investigations revealed the allegations to be egregious lies. Carl Beech was found guilty and sentenced to 18 years in prison. However, those who helped create the environment in which such lies thrive never properly explained their roles.

I am still amazed that Tom Watson, one of Beech’s most enthusiastic political supporters, was subsequently elevated to the House of Lords by Starmer, despite serious concerns that prevented him from being ennobled when he was previously nominated by Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer has never acknowledged the damage caused to the culture he helped create.

The silence was deafening. The common thread in all these chapters is not the principle, but its absence. Whether it is economic policy, public appointments, criminal justice or political patronage, Starmer’s instinct has often been to follow prevailing fashions rather than champion enduring values.

He introduces himself as a serious and judicial lawyer. But it often only appears after the damage has been done and announces inspections and investigations rather than passing judgment at the most crucial moment.

Britain faces profound challenges that require faith, openness and leadership. Instead we have a Prime Minister who appears to be guided more by political calculations than principles. The tragedy is not just that Sir Keir Starmer has disappointed those who believed he would govern differently. His record shows a consistent inability to recognize mistakes, learn from them, and accept responsibility.

Judiciary is the basic qualification for high offices. On the evidence of recent years, Sir Keir Starmer has repeatedly failed this test.

Harvey Proctor is a former MP and chairman of the not-for-profit organisation, Facing Allegations in Contexts of Trust (FACT).