Starmer's tenure as PM is scarred by grooming gang failures

Telegraph

30-04-2025

When the history of this Government comes to be written by some poor benighted soul, I suspect that it will be defined not by the insanity of net zero nor by its attacks on farmers nor even by its treasonous abandonment of British sovereign territory but instead by the girls whom, in towns across the country, it willingly sacrificed for political ends and to appease its sectarian base vote.
The grooming gang scandal is something so appalling that it should take up hours and hours in Parliament every day. Instead, it only comes up when the Government absolutely cannot avoid it doing so. Prime Minister's Questions is one such occasion, and to her credit the leader of the Opposition was not letting the issue lie.
Essentially, though, she only got to ask one question – why won't the Government have a national inquiry? – because the PM seemed so determined not to answer it.
Firstly, he tried deflection. 'They had 14 years!' he squealed. Then he tried distraction – 'I initiated the first prosecution of a grooming gang when I was director of public prosecutions'. That he was previously in this role is actually a little-known fact about Sir Oinky and one which he never, ever mentions, so it was nice to be given a bit of obscure trivia.
Readers might also be surprised to learn that his father was a toolmaker! Both these tactics having failed, Oinky resorted to his default setting, making a dubious claim.
'We've had a national inquiry,' he said, following it up with the claim that 'victims want local inquiries'. The man doesn't just tell porkies, he embodies them. Perhaps he's got one of those red tractor food standards labels glued to his behind, bearing the legend '100% British Pork'.
Mrs Badenoch wasn't the only party leader to ask awkward questions about the effects of unbridled immigration on towns across Britain. The member for Clacton asked whether the PM would admit that his 'smash the gangs' policy was not worth the paper it was written on. Clearly inundated with examples of towns where migrant hotels are causing resentment, he chose one at random: Runcorn.
This drew yowls and caterwauls from Labour and the gaggle of Lib Dems sitting behind him. It sounded like rectal examination time at the zoo. Angriest of all was Oinky, who didn't answer the question but went into some deranged rant about Liz Truss and Vladimir Putin.
Behind him, Yvette Cooper bobbed her head in a strange shimmying motion like she was one of the Supremes. It presumably signalled to any other praying mantises in the House that she was in agreement with all of Oinky's rage.
Mr Farage seemed to enjoy the opprobrium. All those scoffing MPs yelling 'shame' at the few of their number who dare to say what the majority of the general public think about migration are exactly what will help, not hinder, him.
I suspect that the Reform UK leader is aware that the Government benches can bray and howl all they like; the reality is that they have managed to become loathed in record time and that the local elections look set to reflect that.
As this well-deserved oblivion stares them in the face, rather than brace for the coming storm, Labour MPs seem determined to find new and more embarrassing ways to debase themselves at Oinky's trotters.
Dan Tomlinson MP asked a question so humiliatingly obsequious that even Lindsay Hoyle, who is normally happy to allow the bottom-crawlers to continue unabated, told the Prime Minister that there was no point in answering it. It may well make depressing reading, but the sooner this lot can be read about in the past tense the better.