Sir Keir Starmer.

A man of little conviction.

It’s not easy for anyone to be in charge of a country, so when Keir Starmer became Prime Minister I decided I would watch for a while. Give him a chance to find his feet and see where he took the job.

Being a moderate, I supported some of his agenda and opposed other parts which is common ground for centrists. Everyone knows what should be done, but few are prepared to put themselves forward to take the risk of leading. Leading a party is relatively simple because the majority want to go in the same direction but leading a nation; that’s a whole different ballgame with very different rules. Not only does one have to appease and disappoint one’s supporters, one must also share power with the opposition. Unfortunately, rather than help a Prime Minister run a successful country their focus is primarily on kicking him or her in the ballot box at every opportunity.

Sir Keir Starmer is, or was a barrister, he justifies his decisions on rules, regulations, precedents, and argument. One of the first lessons in law is there is no place in the rules of law for morality. A man who kills his dying wife because she is in her last hours and relieves her suffering is convicted, because the rules say so, not because of moral right or wrong.

Barristers become experts at arguing both sides of a case. Today they prosecute tomorrow they defend. They represent the victims and the abusers with the same vigour. Most work for money a few work for justice. It’s a job; done well it can make a person a few bob, get a nice house and produce a comfortable life, but unless one does criminal law it’s fairly safe, lucrative, and mundane. So, after the Knighthood and the security was established, Keir set off into politics where his skills gained him the support of the Labour Party.

It’s been a peculiar trend during my life to watch a party built on representing the working class, the ‘lay brothers’ the road diggers, miners and truck drivers, select people to lead them who have no experience of hardship or poverty, who have never had to choose between bread or shoes for their children. Who know nothing of mothers who starve for the last week of the month to avoid debt and who lose a day’s pay if they park for too long in Lidle. These Labour Party leaders know more about Einstein’s special theory of relativity than they do of working people.

However, here he is in the job, most of the nation had never heard of him before, never voted for him, but they voted Labour because they always had, and so had their parents before them.

My first impression was not a good one. My perception was of a dull man, a man of little conviction, a person of process and diligence who lacked passion, lacked emotion and most of all lacked charisma. He could drive the train, but he couldn’t engineer it to go faster, couldn’t feel, or hear the nuances and unseen characteristics that could keep it going when it wanted to stop. There was no joy in this man, no excitement. He was boring.

Come the crisis, come the hour, come the man. Well, here we are. Three weeks into a world disaster created by Donald Trump’s illegal and unnecessary attack on Iran. For a brief moment I thought I saw a flash of courage, something to admire erupted from Starmer’s blank façade. He boldly went where no man has gone before and refused to allow Trump to mount missions against Iran from UK airfields. ‘Good for you’ I thought.

Starmer was true to himself and justified his actions on legality. The attacks broke international law, and the UK could not be seen to support such actions. He wasn’t alone, most of the leaders of Europe said the same thing. Hooray! We have a leader. Someone in charge is standing up the bully. Hooray for the UK, hooray for decency and morality? Hmm, maybe not.

Within forty-eight hours our bold man of legal principle began to crumble. UK bases can be used but only for ‘defensive operations.’ Now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. Defensive operations in war simply means killing the enemy if he attacks you or your territory. In this case however it was patently obvious Trump was the aggressor. Starmer had implied as much with his original stand. Whatever threats the USA had voiced behind closed doors had been enough to force a humiliating Starmer climb down. ‘U turn’ might be a better expression.

The USA continues with its unhinged threats and escalations against Iran but now rather than joining as a member of the coalition of courage, Starmer stands alone. Ungratefully, Trump continues to call him out as a coward and stomps him into to the floor. At RAF Fairford, American B52, long range bombers have been filmed loading 2000lb glide bombs onto aircraft going to the middle east. In effect the USA said, ‘We are going to use your territory to fight our war and there is nothing you can do to stop us!’ Diego Carcia in the Indian Ocean suffered the same indignities while Starmer adds the characteristics of weak and pathetic to boring.

People do not follow weak leaders; they do not vote for people who cannot stand up to tyranny. When their leader is humiliated the population also feel foolish.

There is no doubt Starmer could justify his actions of the grounds of expediency, legality, or rules-based justification, but he has got it all wrong morally and politically. The people see a weakling, kissing up to someone who is threatening him. Starmer doesn’t know if he is on the side of right or wrong; he doesn’t know if he is prosecuting or defending.

Iran fired a long-range ballistic missile at Diego Carcia which, like Fairford is now part of the USA war program.

Sadly, where Sir Keir Starmer is concerned, I must stand by my original assessment. ‘a dull man, a man of little conviction, a person of process and diligence who lacked passion, lacked emotion and most of all lacked charisma.’

Robin Horsfall

I write to fight!

(Upgrade, join the fight. Be a paid subscriber)