A fate worse than Starmer

Time was when political scandals rocked nations and altered history. Watergate wasn’t just a bad headline or a name-calling spat, it was burglary, taped conversations, perjury and congressional hearings. Profumo had a serious breach of national security and a romantic affair to boot. Now, though, we have 21st-century scandal-lite: confected outrage for clicks, trivial infractions inflated into “crises” by opportunistic politicians who still think they’re in the student union. At Prime Minister’s Questions this week, Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch traded blows that most people wouldn’t notice, much less care about. Two-Tier (or Still-Here as he’s reminding us) declared that Robert Jenrick should have been sacked for saying there were no white faces in parts of Birmingham. This was a statement of demographic fact, not some racial slur, as the perpetually incandescent This is no Watergate Daily Telegraph 11/02/26 Left claims. Anyone who has walked through certain districts of our major cities knows that Britain has changed dramatically in a staggeringly short space of time. That was only one of a series of attempted deflections. The Prime Minister even reached back to witter on about Dominic Raab, who resigned as deputy prime minister after a bullying inquiry found he had behaved in an intimidating and aggressive way towards officials. These were allegations many reasonable people considered spurious, politically motivated or at least wildly overblown in a culture where minor criticism was considered human rights abuse. In any case, that was 2023, under earlier (mis)management, and Raab is no longer in Parliament. What was the point of dragging up what is, in Westminster terms, ancient history? Then, with scarcely less inevitability than death and taxes, Starmer trundled out his favourite old line about Liz Truss “crashing the economy”. She didn’t. Her administration was amateur and chaotic, yes. There was short-term market volatility, yes. But GDP did not collapse; unemployment did not rise.

Of course, Partygate – the Curious Case of Cake in the Cabinet Room – always gets a mention. Boris Johnson’s ultimate downfall came not from Victoria sponge, but from his failure to dismiss Christopher Pincher quickly enough after claims of drunken groping at the Carlton Club. However tawdry that behaviour, it wasn’t the Prime Minister doing it. Yet if Starmer was predictably otiose, Badenoch was little better. “We weren’t the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists,” she snapped back. The Peter Mandelson and, now, Matthew Doyle saga has been poorly handled. But Starmer never met Jeffrey Epstein. He wasn’t named in the Epstein files, as far as we know. His “crime” is pathetically prosaic: an inability to just apologise quickly and take responsibility. This unedifying opportunism isn’t uniquely British. Senior US Democrat Ro Khanna (no, me neither) has suggested the King should answer questions about Epstein. Apart from a chance to humiliate our too-often-put-upon monarch, what useful purpose could this possibly serve? Both Government and Opposition appear convinced that the next scalp will change everything – that if only they can score a few more cheap political points, voters will overlook the unholy mess both sides have made of the country – when really it’s mutually assured destruction. It just entrenches disillusion with the “establishment” at a time when the only growth we’re getting is in boat crossings and the benefits bill. Voters are not itching for the next coup. They want some sensible, constructive policies to deal with our ever-growing problems – not simply a switch from Tweedledum to Tweedledee at the dispatch box. When I met Badenoch last week, she was disparaging about the candidates most likely to replace Starmer. Ed Miliband would bankrupt us with net zero, Angela Rayner with socialism. Wes Streeting, for all his communication skills, would bend to the Left. But if the Conservatives really believe any successor to Starmer would accelerate our national decline, why campaign relentlessly for his removal? It has echoes of the cynical decision to vote against Labour’s welfare cuts last summer, when Badenoch played political games for short-term headlines rather than acting in the country’s best interests. In Machiavellian terms, attacking personalities is a bit of a gamble for the Tories. I know it’s difficult to believe, but it’s just possible Starmer could be replaced by someone more competent, more energetic, more able to prosecute Labour’s case – even if their policies are going to impoverish us all. With three years until a general election, why is Badenoch pushing this issue so hard? Voters won’t thank the Tories (or Reform UK, which seems equally keen to bring Starmer down) when they can’t afford to turn on the heating or can’t get a job because Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner has been installed in Downing Street.