'Keir Starmer repeatedly failed one test – I know first-hand consequences'
Keir Starmer repeatedly failed one test – I know first-hand consequences of his judgement
OPINION - HARVEY PROCTOR: Principled politicians are guided by a set of beliefs, no such luck with our outgoing PM.
Share Article Facebook X LinkedIn Reddit Bluesky Email Copy Link Link copied
Add us as preferred source Comments OPINION By Harvey Proctor – Guest Columnist 14:43, Tue, Jun 23, 2026 Updated: 17:44, Tue, Jun 23, 2026 
I am baffled by the suggestion Sir Keir Starmer is a man of principle. Principled politicians may be right or wrong, but they are guided by a coherent set of beliefs. Starmer has demonstrated no such consistency. Instead, his career has been characterised by expediency, U-turns and a persistent failure of judgement. When Labour came to office, Starmer declared that economic growth would be his overriding priority. Yet his government’s actions have pointed in the opposite direction. Businesses have been burdened with higher employment costs, opportunities for young workers have diminished with more than million young NEETS (not in education, employment or training), but I also apportion some of the blame at the previous Conservative governments who failed to address this adequately. Investment has faltered and economic confidence has weakened. The rhetoric promised growth, reality has delivered stagnation.
His handling of public appointments tells a similar story. After championing Peter Mandelson for 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 convenient and disowned when politically costly.
Get the latest politics news - straight from our team in Westminster and more Invalid emailWe use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
- Politics LIVE: Arch-Remainer Andy Burnham mulls Ed Miliband for Chancellor
- Brexit voters rage after Labour's huge betrayal: 'No one fought our corner'
The same pattern can be seen in welfare policy. Pensioners faced the prospect of losing winter fuel payments while welfare spending continued its relentless expansion – increasing by £20billion and bringing the annual benefits and out-of-work support cost to £333billion.
Nor has Starmer’s personal conduct in office reflected the high standards he so often preaches. The “freebie-gate” controversy struck at the heart of his carefully cultivated image of integrity. While millions of families were struggling with the cost of living, it emerged that Starmer and senior ministers had accepted thousands of pounds worth of luxury gifts, including designer clothing, expensive spectacles and hospitality funded by wealthy Labour donor Lord Alli.
The sums involved were less significant than the symbolism. A Prime Minister who asks the public to tighten their belts cannot credibly appear content to enjoy privileges funded by wealthy benefactors. The episode exposed a striking gap between Starmer’s rhetoric and his judgement. It was not unlawful, but it revealed a political tin ear of remarkable proportions.
The same lack of judgement was evident in the government’s approach to Britain’s farming community. The proposed inheritance tax raid on family farms provoked outrage across rural Britain. Farmers who had spent generations building businesses and stewarding the countryside suddenly found themselves facing uncertainty about whether their children would be able to continue their livelihoods.
Only after widespread protests, public anger and sustained political pressure did the Government retreat and significantly increase the tax-free threshold. Once again, Starmer was not leading events but reacting to them. The pattern is familiar: announce first, think later, retreat when reality intrudes. There was no discernible philosophy underpinning these decisions, merely a series of contradictory gestures designed to appease competing interests.
But my concern with Sir Keir goes deeper than policy disagreements. It concerns judgement, accountability and justice. As Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer became one of the most prominent advocates of a criminal justice culture that increasingly prioritised belief over evidence. In the aftermath of the Savile scandal, institutions across Britain succumbed to a moral panic. Starmer was not merely a bystander; he helped shape the atmosphere in which allegations were too often treated as proof.
His repeated insistence that false allegations were exceptionally rare contributed to a dangerous shift in thinking. Police forces absorbed the message. The result was the abandonment of traditional investigative scepticism and the emergence of cases such as Operation Midland. I know the consequences only too well.
The Metropolitan Police publicly declared Carl Beech’s allegations to be “credible and true” before any meaningful investigation had taken place. My home was raided. My reputation was destroyed. My life was turned upside down. Alongside others, including the late Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and Sir Edward Heath, I was subjected to public suspicion of the most heinous crimes possible without evidence.
Subsequent inquiries exposed the allegations as monstrous lies. Carl Beech was convicted and imprisoned to 18 years in prison. Yet those who helped create the climate in which such lies flourished have never properly accounted for their role.
I remain astonished that Tom Watson, one of Beech’s most enthusiastic political supporters, was later elevated to the House of Lords by Starmer, despite the serious concerns that had previously prevented his ennoblement when nominated by Jeremy Corbyn. Nor has Starmer ever acknowledged the damage caused by the culture he helped create.
The silence has been deafening. The common thread running through all these episodes is not principle but its absence. Whether on economic policy, public appointments, criminal justice or political patronage, Starmer’s instinct has too often been to follow prevailing fashions rather than defend enduring values.
He presents himself as a serious and forensic lawyer. Yet time and again he appears only after the damage has been done, announcing reviews and inquiries instead of exercising judgement when it matters most.
Britain faces profound challenges that require conviction, clarity and leadership. What we have instead is a Prime Minister who too often seems guided by political calculation rather than principle. The tragedy is not merely that Sir Keir Starmer has disappointed those who believed he would govern differently. It is that his record demonstrates a recurring inability to recognise mistakes, learn from them and accept responsibility.
Judgement is the essential qualification for high office. On the evidence of recent years, Sir Keir Starmer has repeatedly failed that test.
Harvey Proctor is a former MP and president of the non-profit organisation Facing Allegations in Contexts of Trust (FACT)
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
