Has Kier Starmer, 'Queered his Pitch'?

by Tim Veater

In one of his recent monologues, George Galloway identified three existential threats to Kier Starmer remaining much longer in post as Prime Minister.

One, the up-coming local elections in which Labour is expected to do disasterously, resulting in a revolt by MPs and a demand for his resignation.

Two, the appointment on his personal recommendation, of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, despite his long and close association with the trafficker of under age girls, Jeffrey Epstein, even after he knew he had been convicted of related criminal charges.

Three, the up-coming trial of three young Ukrainian men, who set fire to two houses and a car, either owned by, or associated with, the Prime Minister. How they knew, and were able to identify those items, and why they would want to set fire to them despite the risks, is of course the burning question. (I hope you will excuse the pun but it is I think in better taste than Galloway constantly referring to "arsonists" and "arsonising"!) 

Starmer and the Labour Party gained a sweeping victory by default in the July 2024 General Election, because the nation was sick and tired of fourteen years of Conservative mismanagement. It was not because Labour had any clear prospectus or clearly stated priorities other than "clearing up the mess" left to them. This was not accidental but an intentional and successful manipulating electioneering strategy by Morgan McSweeney, who subsequently took responsibility (and 'the bullet') for the Mandelson farrago.

Starmer was elected his party's Leader and Prime Minister as 'Mr Truthful' and 'Mr Clean', having for many years been the Director of Public Prosecutions (2008 - 2013) before becoming an MP in 2015. He had obtained law degrees from Leeds and Oxford before becoming a Barrister and taking Silk in 2002 specialising, perhaps ironically, in International Humanitarian Law.

A whole series of events, including the three referred to above, have rather taken the shine off his public persona as a competent, ethical or even mildly inspirational political leader. In fact I believe history will regard him as one of the most forgettable.

Public attitude surveys indicate he is seen as stilted and unapproachable, and it is notable that his PR team has been working hard to correct this by multiple 'meet and greet' opportunities, particularly with children and animals, where he has obviously been groomed to be relaxed and smiling. Whether this ploy has been effective is doubtful.

Despite this, his public support figures are at historically low levels. You-Gov in March put him at 'Minus 49' and declining, not helped by the on-going Mandelson fiasco, in which it would appear everyone is to blame, apart from himself. No one believes he can cling on to the 'greasy pole' for much longer. 

As a prelude to today's (22.4.2026) Prime Minister's Questions he again drew attention to alleged attacks on jewish establishments and his government's commitment to opposing 'anti-semitism', whilst completely ignoring the appalling violence and injustice meted out to incarcerated innocent Palestinians. Torture and death in Israeli prisons has become a consistent and institutionally approved state of affairs, yet Starmer is blind to it. (See articles below)

He has notoriously defended and excused blatant Israeli war crimes including starvation, with the legal fig leaf of 'right to self defence', whilst for the last two and a half years, he has headed up a government actively supportive of Israeli genocide, whilst criminalising, arresting and prosecuting English men and women who have the audacity and courage to protest against it.

It is symptomatic of his biased and blinkered 'moral outrage', evident yet again in the Mandelson case, which was directed against every one and every thing, except his own opinion; his own judgment. Particularly surprising in a man who spent decades as a prominent Barrister and Chief Prosecutor for England and who has made much of his own professional integrity.

There is a touch of the Dickens' character Uriah Heap about him, particularly as he fawned over Donald Trump, rushing to pick up his dropped papers and making a 'present' of the King's invitation. (Was it done on purpose by that meglomaniac? I have often wondered.) Little good it did him as he resisted Trump's demands to join the attacks on Iran, perhaps his first principled move.

What we have witnessed in Parliament and more generally, is not integrity, but legal sophistry and chicanery: ignoring the spirit of an agreement by finding the let-out clause in the small print. Blaming everyone else for the policy he agressively promoted. ("Fucking get it done" were the actual words emanating from Number Ten Downing Street to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office!) Yet now he insists if only he had known the full facts, he would have not appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of American Ambassador. 

In less than two years he has managed to blame and sack (or 'resigned') at least eight important officials in either party, government or civil service. Sue Gray, Chief of Staff; Matthew Doyle, Head of Communications; Stephanie Driver, Hear of Communications; James Lyons, Head of Communications; Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister; Morgan MacSweeney, Chief of Staff; Chris Wormald, Cabinet Secretary; and Sir Olly Robbins, Permanent Under-Secretary. 

He even claims to 'take responsibility' for a bad decision, whilst transparently not doing so. Has there ever been a better example of political humbug? He is the platoon leader who blows the whistle but remains in the trench.

It is clear Starmer is 'on the ropes', but hopes by 'ducking and diving' he can survive the sustained ferocious verbal attack. Maybe he has been partly successful? Today in Parliament he claimed the issue of his involvement in the Mandelson debacle, "had been put to bed". Some might consider this an unfortunate Freudian slip. With three Ukrainian 'Escorts' and 'Models' coming to trial, the expression may yet prove prophetic.

The Prime Minister has made much of the concept of 'due process and that it was followed, yet somehow the critical security failure finding was not conveyed to him. He sought to shift the focus from an extraordinary failure of decision-making, to an "extraordinary failur of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office". Acolytes were dispatched to newsrooms to repeat the exact same adjective in an obviously coordinated effort to shift the blame.

Despite the failure, vetting was said to have been passed and the appointment was made despite it. In fact the appointment was announced as Olly Robbins revealed, before even the vetting had taken place! This it was claimed was standard practice for 'political appointments', as in the Mandelson case. 

All of this is utilized by Starmer to deny accountability. It is all the smallprint in the contract - the let-out clauses, whilst deflecting the obvious. But Starmer did not need a professional vetting process to inform and persuade him Mandelson was unsuited for the American post: the reasons were already in the public domain - let alone in the private political one.

Mandelson had been sacked from office twice before. He had a dubious sexual history that may make him subject to blackmail. He had long been recognised as 'master of the black arts'. 

He had had a long-standing intimate relationship with a notorious sex addict and trafficker even after he had been convicted of such and had passed government confidential financial information to him. 

In addition his personal and business links with Chinese and Russian interests, particulary the Russian alleged criminal oligarch Oleg Deripaska, were enough to raise serious questions in any fair-minded person, let alone a well-informed Prime Minister, with direct access to all the Secret Services. 

All or any of this should have debarred him. Starmer, Englands Chief Criminal Prosecutor knew it; as a fellow Labour politician he knew it; as Prime Minister he must have known it; yet now incredibly he claims ignorance as the excuse for appointing him. The real question that Dianne Abbott posed is, "Why if he wasn't informed of the results of the vetting process, didn't he ask?"

An even more important question perhaps is, despite what everyone knew in and out of government of Mandelson's unsuitability for the post of Ambassador, why was Starmer and the Cabinet Office so determined to appoint him? What positive features outweighed all the negatives? 

Was it indeed that his reputation as "Prince of Darkness" and the skills he possessed would work well in an administration headed by Trump?  That there would in fact be a meeting of minds and outlook? 

And can we forget that both Trump and Mandelson shared a common friend - and no doubt a great deal of inside information on - a man called Epstein and the intimate life of all of them? By general agreement, Epstein was an asset, if not an agent, of the Israeli regime. There is similar concurrence regarding Netanyahu's influence over Trump. 

Starmer, grounded in his jewish roots, has made clear his support of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes and heinous humanitarian infringements. It has been said that the secret services of America, Israel and Britain, behind the scenes, act as one. In the murky business of the appointment of Mandelson, the least referred to element of the puzzle, might in fact, be the most important.

Israeli Prison Torture: https://www.btselem.org/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell

From:  Kristyan Benedict - Amnesty International UK

 

From:supporters@email.amnestyuk.org.uk

Dear Tim,   Following the joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran which began on 28 February, hostilities have extended across borders - resulting in widespread civilian casualties, the largescale destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass displacement and serious disruptions to essential services.  This crisis has precipitated a grave and escalating human rights and humanitarian crisis.  We are continuing to press the UK government to do everything possible to protect civilians and strictly adhere to international law. We have also pressed for a commitment to an investigation of violations and potential war crimes by all parties to the conflicts. We want the government to do all in its power to prevent further military escalation and crimes under international law.  Sadly, our government is failing to meet this challenge when it comes to Israel and the US. In particular, they haven’t:

Refused the provision of UK airbases and airspace in support of military operations that may contribute to violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law.  Stopped arms transfers where there is a substantial risk that the weapons could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.

Regarding Israel specifically, the UK government has still not unequivocally opposed – in words and more importantly, actions - Israel’s horrific invasion of Lebanon and its plans to set up a civilian-free buffer zone in parts of southern Lebanon.     The UK should work with and encourage the Lebanese authorities to investigate and prosecute these crimes. We want our government to defend and uphold human rights and rebuild the power of international law, uphold international justice, and ensure accountability.    We will update you further on our work, as we continue to pressure the UK government to respect international law, call out violations by its partners and leverage all available diplomatic tools to ensure all parties abide by their obligations to protect civilians.