We must finally bury the absurd idea that Keir Starmer is honest
The latest spot of mischief is a new poll by Ipsos that unhelpfully (from Keir Starmer's perspective) asked respondents to compare a range of the Labour leader's qualities with those of Nigel Farage.
In almost every category, ranging from understanding the problems facing Britain to being considered a strong leader, Farage comes out on top. In only one characteristic does the Prime Minister beat his opponent: honesty.
This will come as something of a surprise to many. Not that Starmer is any more prone to being economical with the truth than many of his predecessors or Cabinet colleagues.
But his short but spectacular rise to the top of his party within five years of his first becoming an MP at the age of 52 involved a series of – how to put this delicately? – rebranding of some of his previously stated principles.
For example, Starmer bravely resigned on principle from Jeremy Corbyn's front bench in 2016 in protest at the former leader's unsuitability for office. But by the end of the year Starmer was back, this time with a promotion to shadow Brexit secretary and a newfound enthusiasm to make his 'friend' Prime Minister at the first opportunity.
That was quite a turnaround, though Starmer was by no means alone in his decision to put his personal career prospects and those of his party above what he had previously described as his principle.
There was more. In order to win the approval of the many hundreds of thousands of party members who were crazy enough to vote for Corbyn (twice), Starmer came up with a list of Left-wing policies he promised to support if only they would make him leader following Corbyn's resignation. The members duly complied, after which Starmer ditched virtually every single promise he had made.
He fell out with one of his own MPs, Rosie Duffield, over whether women could exclusively claim to be in possession of cervixes ('That isn't right,' he claimed, though not directly to Rosie) and maintained generously and imaginatively that '99.9 per cent of women don't have a penis'.
By the time the 2024 general election came along, though, this too had been ditched as a principle that risked losing votes. After a discussion with another man (Tony Blair), Starmer then decided that women could be defined, after all, as 'adult females'.
After he reached Downing Street, we jumped on a veritable rollercoaster as the Prime Minister embraced a series of issues then disowned them faster than you could say 'Island of strangers'.
First, there was Israel. Starmer was instinctively inclined, when in opposition, to support the nation against the barbarism of Hamas terrorism. But that was before four formerly safe Labour seats were unexpectedly lost to 'pro-Gaza' independent candidates at the election. Both the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, suddenly discovered the electoral advantages of agreeing to allow the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for 'war crimes' for Benjamin Netanyahu.
Previous courageous support for Israel in the wake of the Islamist pogrom of October 7, 2023, was banished by the Labour Government's adoption of export restrictions to Israel. With friends like these . . .
There was the Island of Strangers speech itself, which merely warned that immigration rules must be applied fairly to all, but some hyper-sensitive comrades were appalled at comparisons with Enoch Powell's infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. Soon after, Starmer basically apologised for using the term, leaving everyone wondering how much of the speech he had actually meant.
All of that is before the many and sundry U-turns that have entertained the country since then. Steadfast, immovable positions of principle have been quickly abandoned at the first sign of a raised eyebrow from an anonymous back bencher.
The Supreme Court ruling that decided that 'woman' in the Equality Act meant biological female – the aforementioned possessor of a cervix, no less – was even welcomed by Starmer and his ministers as confirming what they had always believed, despite a cursory reading of any number of previous statements proving the precise opposite.
And yet Nigel Farage is seen as less honest. We must conclude that this is down to Farage's barrow boy-cum-used car salesman vibe, which he has adopted and benefited from for many years, rather than individual incidents of untruthfulness.
Unlike the Reform leader, Starmer is actually expected to make dozens, if not hundreds of decisions every day, whereas Farage can get away with simply telling his audiences whatever it is they wish to hear on any given day.
This is not to say that the poll's respondents were wrong in their judgement: despite Farage's success, particularly in the last year, he has not yet sealed the deal with a naturally cynical electorate. He benefits from the simple fact that he is not seen as part of the political establishment rather than possessing cohesive alternative platform for government.
As for Starmer, he should be well pleased that in this one measure for outstripping his populist rival. He might be as surprised as the rest of us, but at this stage in the game, it's best not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Especially while there's still a consensus on what a horse actually is.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tread carefully with reform of bank ringfencing, chancellor
Rachel Reeves called it 'the biggest set of reforms to financial regulation in a decade', and, in one narrow sense, her Leeds Reforms would qualify for the description. If the ringfencing regime for banks were to be scrapped, we really would be entering a new era – or going back to an old one, since the separation of banks' retail and investment banking activities was the single biggest regulatory change introduced after the 2008-09 crash to try to prevent another blow-up. Reeves on Tuesday, however, merely announced a review to look at how reforms to ringfencing could 'strike the right balance between growth and stability, including protecting consumer deposits'. One hopes that does not mean outright abolition, which is what banks such as HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest have been urging on the grounds that the rules trap capital and impede growth. The stout defence of ringfencing from Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, has always felt more compelling: the regime has made banks safer and removal would increase the cost of loans and mortgages. It would surely be hard for a chancellor to override the Bank on this core question, especially when Barclays – which, in theory, might have most to gain from abolition as it has the largest investment bank – is also in the defence camp. A fudged outcome would see more activities allowed within the ringfenced entity. It is technical stuff, but also deeply important. Get it wrong and the cautious voices sounding the alarm over a government in search of a sugar-rush of growth via financial deregulation would have a point. Tread carefully, chancellor: ditching ringfencing in its entirety risks unlearning the lessons of the last crisis. In other respects, however, Reeves's red tape-slashing, investment-boosting, obstacle-removing reforms can be criticised in the other direction: yes, some changes are sensible tidying-up exercises but others are underwhelming. Take the showbiz headliner: the advertising campaign to encourage over-cautious savers to push a few quid into the stock market. The goal is admirable in itself for the reasons the Treasury gives: savers are doing themselves long-term financial harm if they do not understand that shares beat cash over most long-term periods. • Looser mortgage rules, which allow lenders to provide bigger mortgages worth more than 4.5 times borrowers' annual income. The move could help another 36,000 first-time buyers per year, according to the Bank of England • A permanent government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme, in which taxpayers will pick up the bill when a borrower defaults, in an effort to encourage participating banks to offer more 91-95% mortgages • A government-backed but industry-funded advertising campaign to encourage consumers to invest their cash savings in shares • Plans to allow banks to send information about 'investment opportunities' to savers that have cash sitting in low interest rate accounts, encouraging them to shift money to stocks and shares • A fresh review of ringfencing rules which were introduced after the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect consumer cash from a bank's riskier activities • A review of warnings attached to investment products to ensure that people are 'accurately' judging risk levels • Plans to 'radically streamline' accountability rules for senior bankers and finance bosses • Reining in the powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which settles complaints between consumers and businesses • Cutting the rate of interest – and therefore total compensation – paid out to consumers wronged by City firms and imposing a 10-year limit for claims • A new 'concierge service' to court international investors and create a one-stop-shop to promote the UK and provide tailored support to help businesses plan where to invest. But it's not as if the Treasury itself is doing much more than cheering from the wings. The ad campaign will be funded by the industry, which presumably could have launched the thing itself without government endorsement. At the very least, Reeves could have given the volunteers a hand by abolishing stamp duty on shares for purchases within ISAs. Even that gentle step was conspicuous by its absence. Tweaking risk-warning messaging may help at the margins. So will better access for retail investors to corporate debt and corporate fund-raising, as announced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). But if Reeves is truly alarmed (as she should be) by the statistic that the UK has the lowest level of retail investment in the G7 group of rich economies, bolder measures are needed. It could take a generation to change saving habits to encourage 'informed risk-taking' but the crisis in the London stock market is happening now. Stamp duty remains the drag in the background, and is the real test of the Treasury's seriousness. Elsewhere, several reforms look justified: help for 'challenger' banks on capital rules; some loosening of rules to help first-time buyers; a trimming of the size of the authorisation regime for bank senior managers in the interest of efficiency; changes to allow the London Stock Exchange to quote dollar- and euro-denominated shares. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion A third pot of policies are straightforward lobbying victories for the City. That lot includes the neutering of the financial ombudsman service, but the banks may have had a point about the body acting as a 'quasi regulator' within the FCA. The timing of the reform looks terrible while the unresolved car finance affair rumbles on, but the regulatory setup did look basically confused. The onus now falls on the FCA to act sooner to spot looming scandals, which is not a wholly reassuring thought. But let's not overstate the significance of the Mansion House speech. Yes, the financial services industry deserves its place as one of the eight growth-driving sectors within the government's overall industry strategy; it's too big to ignore. But, despite some of the rhetoric, it's not as if the City is currently being strangled by regulation in the way that purer industrial sectors are being hampered by high energy costs. So don't go overboard on ringfencing reform: it is the bit that matters the most.
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STILL a turn off! Fewer than one in eight watched BBC Scotland...despite it costing £200m
Fewer than one in eight adults watched the BBC Scotland digital channel each week last year - despite it having cost licence-payers more than £200million since its launch. The channel reached only 13 per cent of the population, the same figure as the previous year, and was watched for only an hour and 33 minutes a week by the average viewer. According to the latest BBC annual accounts for 2024/25, the cost of the channel, paid for by the licence fee, rose from £40million a year to £42million in the past year - and the cost per 'user hour' for the BBC Scotland channel and BBC Scotland content on iPlayer was 45p. Earlier this year, BBC Scotland's flagship news show Reporting Scotland: News at Seven was launched on the digital channel, replacing The Nine, which was axed after a row over low viewer numbers and too many repeats, with the new show attracting fewer than 30,000 viewers for its first episode. Last night Scottish Tory culture spokesman Murdo Fraser said: 'BBC Scotland bosses must address why Scots are not getting value for money when it comes to this channel. 'Given the sums involved they must ensure that they are investing in high-quality content that resonates with and reaches a far wider audience in Scotland.' News at Seven, a 30-minute show airing every weeknight on the BBC Scotland channel, aims to complement Reporting Scotland, the BBC One news programme which is screened at 6.30pm. It is presented by Laura Maciver and Amy Irons, who take turns fronting the show. The total cost of the BBC Scotland channel since its launch in 2019 is £204million. The Nine - which at one point reached just 1,700 people - ended last year along with entertainment news programme The Edit and weekly news review Seven Days. Last year media commentator and former BBC editor Professor Tim Luckhurst said: 'The number paying the licence fee has declined and the BBC faces financial challenges that can only be met by making staff redundant. 'For BBC Scotland to spend millions of pounds on a channel that attracts a tiny minority of the population in these circumstances is unreasonable. 'The BBC Scotland channel should close immediately - it costs money the BBC cannot afford.' The BBC was contacted for comment on funding for the digital channel. Meanwhile, the annual report said the BBC as a whole had screened 'content reflecting all of Scotland', including dramas Shetland, starring Ashley Jensen, Rebus – with Richard Rankin in the title role - and Granite Harbour, as well as documentary series Murder Trial, Inside Barlinnie [prison], and Sir Alex, about Sir Alex Ferguson, Britain's most decorated football manager. Award-winning The Agency: Unfiltered returned for a third series searching for Scotland's top influencer and attracting younger audiences. The report said 'Scotland-produced audio content' performed well on BBC Sounds and BBC Sport with Sportsound at six million plays. BBC Radio nan Gàidheal launched a 'celebration of new Gaelic song and composition', Òran Ùr. The report said 56 per cent of adults in Scotland consume BBC Scotland content on average per week, down from 57 per cent the previous year. Muriel Gray, chairman of the Scotland committee of the BBC, said: 'During the year, the committee has discussed and reviewed a number of critical areas, including major news changes introduced by BBC Scotland in January, BBC Radio Scotland's audience performances, the role of television drama in driving iPlayer growth, and the renewal of the BBC's partnership with MG ALBA.' In January, the BBC's new boss in Scotland claimed people may not be paying for a TV licence because of the cost of living crisis and the wide choice of programmes across streaming services. Ms Valentine, who became Director of BBC Scotland in October, defended News at Seven when she appeared before MPs at the Scottish Affairs Committee in the Commons. A BBC spokesman said: 'Fluctuations in recorded spend can be due to several factors including variations in the transmission dates of scripted content and special content, for example related to the Euros. 'This is reflected in the accounts. 'The BBC Scotland channel is the top performer after the leading 5 channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, C4 and C5 - and audiences also watch the channel's content on the iPlayer. 'The cost per user hour for the channel has fallen year on year and in 2024/25, and BBC Scotland content had 1million weekly active users on iPlayer..'
BBC News
38 minutes ago
- BBC News
Three key questions after Afghan data leak sparked unprecedented secret evacuation
It has been more than three years since a British official inadvertently leaked a dataset containing the names and contact details of thousands of people who were attempting to flee possible Taliban revenge April 2024, the government began relocating some of them to the UK - but we are only learning this now because extraordinary lengths were gone to in order to prevent the breach and subsequent response coming to the full picture is finally disclosed to the public, these are the questions still facing Britain's security establishment. What can be done about the danger of leaks? It has happened before and it will doubtless happen again. Think Wikileaks, Snowden and all the countless cyber-hacks and ransomware suffered by companies on an almost daily basis. Data leaks are not new but sometimes – and it is quite possible that this is one of those times – they can be life-threatening. The revelations that have come to light will have sent a chill down the spine of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghans who fear retribution by the Taliban. For those already spirited out to Britain, it means they can probably never go back home as long as the Taliban are in the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 dependants still in Afghanistan, the news will mean they are unlikely to breathe easily until the UK delivers on its promise to get them safely out. It's important to bear in mind that all this was not the result of some deliberate, sophisticated cyber attack by a state-backed hacking group. It evolved from an unintentional mistake made by just one individual working for the Ministry of Defence. What does this say about Britain's moral responsibility? UK forces were deployed to Afghanistan, alongside US and Nato allies, over a period of almost 20 years, from October 2001 to August this time they worked closely with their Afghan government allies, relying heavily on their local knowledge and expertise. The most sensitive area was in Special Forces (SF), for whom the Taliban reserved a particular hatred. When Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in the summer of 202, there was a realisation that those now-former Afghan SF soldiers and their families were a priority for relocation to safety. But thousands more Afghans also risked their lives to work with the British over those two decades. Many did it out of patriotism, believing they were working to secure a better did it for the money, some did it because they trusted Britain to safeguard their lives and their personal details. A data breach like this now threatens to undermine any future promises by a British official who says: "Trust us, your data is safe with us." Was there a cover-up? When this "unauthorised data breach" was finally discovered, a full 18 months after it occurred, the UK government obtained what is known as a super-injunction, preventing its publication by the media. A super-injunction is so draconian that it means you cannot even report the fact that you cannot report it. That measure has only just been lifted now, following an independent review. There is a logical case to be made that this measure was necessary to protect the lives of those affected by the data breach. However, questions are now being raised about whether the injunction - applied for by the previous, Conservative government - might also have been for political purposes. The High Court judge who lifted the super-injunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said that it had "had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy".
