Keir Starmer's grooming gang cowardice

New Statesman​

4 hours ago

Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
A prime minister who only acts when forced to do so by others inspires neither confidence nor respect. But this is something we have seen repeatedly with Keir Starmer and this Labour government. The latest – and arguably most egregious – example is the U-turn on holding a full national inquiry into grooming gangs.
In January, Starmer accused politicians calling for such an inquiry of jumping on the 'bandwagon of the far right'. Robust debate, he said, 'can only be based on the true facts'. But the facts today are as they were six months ago; as they have been for years. Thousands of vulnerable girls have been groomed and raped by groups of men, disproportionately of Pakistani heritage.
We knew from Alexis Jay's report in 2014 – 11 years ago – that 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham alone between 1997 and 2013. And that was a 'conservative estimate'. Stories first appeared in the media in 2007, by Julie Bindel in the Sunday Times Magazine. The late Andrew Norfolk of the Times published hundreds of articles from 2011 on child rapes perpetrated across England.
Some of those closest to the Prime Minister privately warned him last year in stark, emotional terms about the scale of the collective failure to protect the most vulnerable girls; that some of the responsibility lay with Labour-run or Labour-dominated local authorities – in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere; that this was one of the most shameful episodes of British history. And yet.
As Louise Casey points out in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, released on 16 June, 'we are talking about multiple sexual assaults committed against children by multiple men on multiple occasions; beatings and gang rapes'. Earlier this month, survivors of the abuse spoke to BBC Newsnight. Kate (not her real name) was raped 'almost daily' by 'multiple men a day'. Fiona was plied with drugs and violently raped from the age of 14, shortly after she was taken into care. Chantelle was also in the care system when she was first abused and drugged at 11 years old. The perpetrators of these crimes were all gangs of British Asian men.
That Starmer had to ask troubleshooter-in-chief Casey to decide whether a national inquiry was needed is cowardice. For the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to declare on the day Casey's report was published that the systematic rape of girls marked 'a stain on our society and a failure of those who were meant to protect them' – only after someone else gave the government permission to say so – was pure chutzpah. Even when confirming his change of heart, the Prime Minister made no compelling case of his own for why these crimes needed proper examination. Rather, Casey had 'come to the view there should be a national inquiry' and he would 'accept her recommendation'.
But this shameful U-turn is part of a wider pattern of this government effectively subcontracting out difficult decisions to others. It looks weak, directionless and lacking in conviction as a result.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Having refused to take a consistent position on the clash between women's rights and the rights of trans people, it was left to the Supreme Court to rule that 'sex' in the Equality Act meant 'biological sex'. The official Labour line had been that no clarification was needed, even when the case was scheduled to be heard. Senior party figures saw the issue as a 'distraction'. The best Starmer could muster in response to the judgement was to say he was pleased it had brought 'clarity'. But what about the issue, Prime Minister? Where do you stand? Do you support the judgement, or does it prompt a rethink in the law? If Starmer and senior cabinet ministers think the ruling was wrong, they should say so. Stop hiding behind process. Lead.
Into this mix of inaction, we can throw in the decision to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Had the government not done so, the Defence Secretary, John Healey, said, 'Within weeks, [it] could face losing legal rulings.' Framing it this way – in effect, 'the courts made us' – hardly screams political conviction. It's the same on Palestinian statehood. Recognition of a Palestinian state is a manifesto pledge, but according to Sky News's Sam Coates, 'the UK will only recognise a Palestinian state once other countries also do so'. And then there's the cut to pensioners' winter fuel allowance: despite insisting it was the right thing to do – for 11 months – Chancellor Rachel Reeves later bowed to public pressure to reverse it.
Politicians must be allowed to change their minds. Admitting you were wrong, being open-minded and receptive to new evidence are signs of strength. But that is not what's happening with this Prime Minister and his government. Time after time, they seem unable to make a positive argument for either action or inaction. Each Labour government since the war has made a strong moral case for its reforms. Attlee and Bevan with the NHS. Wilson and Jenkins on decriminalising homosexuality. Blair and Brown on international development and child poverty. When will this government do the same?
The danger is that into the void come others – Reform especially – who seem more 'authentic', better in touch with what many Britons think and feel. With a big majority, Labour can afford to be bold and principled. To govern is to choose. But those choices should be choices of direction and policy – not of who to ask to make those decisions for you.
[See more: Is Trump the last neoconservative?]
Related