DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer turns hypocrisy into an art form

by · Mail Online

Standing in Downing Street on his first day in office, Sir Keir Starmer promised to lead a government of service.

Given how partial he is to luxurious freebies from various benefactors, the Prime Minister would have been more correct to say self-service.

While warning us to tighten our belts, it's galling he and his wife have been living high on the hog after accepting more than £100,000 of gifts and hospitality since 2019.

It is also a truly terrible look that the Labour-backing tycoon who clothed the wealthy pair was given a No 10 pass.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer celebrates the second Arsenal goal at Arsenal v Wolverhampton on August 17
While warning us to tighten our belts, it's galling he and his wife have been living high on the hog after accepting more than £100,000 of gifts and hospitality since 2019

Meanwhile, Labour grandee Baroness Harman has broken ranks to criticise the PM over his freebies and Labour aides are in open revolt over the bumper salary paid to his controversial chief of staff Sue Gray.

Are the wheels buckling at No10 already? The PM took to the airwaves to insist he is 'completely in control', but after just 77 days in power, that hardly inspires confidence.

Sir Keir chose to make competence standards and ethics an election issue.He sanctimoniously portrayed the Tories as sleazy and self-interested, while painting himself as a paragon of honesty and integrity. His moral crusade is now exposed as a pyramid of piffle.

After releasing criminals early, stripping pensioners of winter fuel payments and rampant cronyism, Sir Freebie's poll ratings are dropping like a stone. Now he is turning venality and hypocrisy into an art form.

Meanwhile, Labour grandee Baroness Harman has broken ranks to criticise the PM over his freebies and Labour aides are in open revolt over the bumper salary paid to his controversial chief of staff Sue Gray

National anthem

In his powerful call for English identity and culture to be championed passionately, Robert Jenrick echoes the views of the majority of ordinary people in this country.

From Magna Carta and Shakespeare to standing steadfast against evil during the Second World War, our nation should swell with pride at what we've given the globe.

But while people in Scotland and Wales unashamedly trumpet their nationhood, the metropolitan elite has decided Englishness is controversial and better off suppressed.

Mr Jenrick pinpoints the problems. Students are taught our past is uniquely evil. Woke institutions relentlessly attack our traditions and achievements. And too many migrants are hostile to our values.

These, he says, have contributed to the country feeling ill at ease with itself – and putting 'the very idea of England at risk'.

So what to do? The Tory leadership hopeful suggests cultivating an uplifting, optimistic Englishness based on shared principles and common purpose.

He deserves applause for initiating this important debate. By being confident in who we are, we'll do a better job of making a success of the future.

In his powerful call for English identity and culture to be championed passionately, Robert Jenrick echoes the views of the majority of ordinary people in this country

A targeted response

How exactly is Israel supposed to respond when attacked by genocidal enemies that seek to wipe it from the face of the Earth?

After the massacres of October 7, Tel Aviv had no option but to seek to obliterate Hamas's operations in Gaza.

Israeli forces have gone to unprecedented lengths to minimise civilian casualties, but it is a sad fact many innocents have been killed.

Yet the UN and the usual suspects on the Left complain that Israel is unleashing indiscriminate death and destruction.

So how did they react when Israel blew up booby-trapped pagers used by Hezbollah commanders – an attack that could hardly have been targeted more precisely?

Predictably, the anti-Israel brigade say that too may breach the rules of war. Isn't this proof that, to them, any attempt by the Jewish state to defend itself is illegitimate?