UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Keir Starmer

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Statement on the Resignation of Boris Johnson

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Statement on the Resignation of Boris Johnson

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 7 July 2022.

    It is good news for our country that Boris Johnson has resigned as Prime Minister.

    But it should have happened long ago. He was always unfit for office. He has been responsible for lies, scandal and fraud on an industrial scale. And all those complicit should be utterly ashamed.

    The Tory Party have inflicted chaos upon the country during the worst cost of living crisis in decades and they cannot now pretend they are the ones to sort it out.

    They have been in power for over 12 years.

    The damage they have done is profound. 12 years of economic stagnation, 12 years of declining public services, 12 years of empty promises.

    Enough is enough.

    We don’t need to change the Tory at the top – we need a proper change of Government.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2022.

    I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I welcome him back to these shores. They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder, so I wish him the best of luck in seeing if that works as a party management strategy.

    It has been 131 days since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, 131 days of war at the heart of our continent, 131 days of Putin trying to make his neighbours cower and 131 days of brave Ukrainian resistance. I have always said that this House, and Britain’s allies, must put aside our differences in other areas and show unity in our opposition to Putin’s aggression. And we have done, driven by the inspiration provided by the people of Ukraine and the leadership and courage of President Zelensky.

    As this conflict reaches its sixth month and drags on in eastern Ukraine, it is important that we do not think our job is done. Putin would like nothing better than for us to lose our focus, for the grip of sanctions to weaken, for military aid to Ukraine to dry up or for cracks to appear in the unity of his opponents. So I welcome the progress made at the NATO summit last week, and congratulate our good friends in Finland and Sweden on their formal invitation to join the NATO alliance, and of course Ukraine on securing its candidate status to join the European Union. I hope that these processes can be concluded as quickly as possible to send a clear message to Putin that his war has permanently changed the European landscape, but not in the way he planned.

    I also welcome the commitment to strengthen our collective deterrent capabilities. I have seen at first hand how British personnel are working with other NATO forces to ensure that the collective shield that has protected us for three quarters of a century remains as strong as ever. So I welcome the agreement on the new NATO force model, ensuring that over 300,000 conventional troops will be at high readiness across Europe. Can I ask the Prime Minister how this agreement will affect British military planning and whether he believes our extra commitments can be met, given his cuts to UK troop numbers?

    The commitment made at the G7 of further financial support for Ukraine is also welcome, as are plans to help Ukraine with post-war reconstruction through an international conference. There can be no clearer case that aid spending makes Britain more secure and prevents the need for military spending in future, which demonstrates the folly in reducing our aid commitments at a time of global instability.

    I am pleased that unity was on display at both the NATO summit and the G7 summit, but I am concerned about current unity within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a valuable and important institution for this country. It is not just a symbol of our past; it is important for our future, providing us with influence in all parts of the world. But in recent years, there have been serious signs of strain. When many major Commonwealth countries abstained at the UN over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the summit should have been an opportunity to widen the diplomatic coalition against Putin. Instead, the Prime Minister waged a divisive campaign against the Commonwealth leadership that ended in a humiliating diplomatic failure, only illustrating his embarrassing lack of influence.

    Instead of investing in aid that strengthens the alliance, the Prime Minister has cut it. Instead of upholding the rule of law that should define the Commonwealth, he reneges on treaties he has signed, undermining Britain’s moral and political credibility, when we need our word to carry trust. My fear is simple: the vacuum we leave behind will be quickly filled not by those who share our values, but by those who seek to destroy them. We cannot let that happen in Ukraine. We cannot let that happen anywhere.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Key Note Speech on Brexit

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Key Note Speech on Brexit

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 4 July 2022.

    Thank you.

    It’s a real privilege to be here tonight.

    We are here to mark the 26th birthday of the CER.

    In that time, the world has changed beyond recognition and so has your work.

    For many 1996 was a time of optimism. From the Baltic shipyards of Poland to the villages of southern Bulgaria, tens of millions of people who had laboured under the yoke of tyranny were looking forward to a European future.

    Barriers were coming down; economies were beginning to thrive.

    Mobile phones were becoming commonplace, personal computers were switched on to the internet – that concept we were beginning to understand in 1996. And those new technologies were connecting the world at a stroke.

    The totemic battles of the previous generation were being wrapped up.

    The Cold War was over. Apartheid had been ended. Peace was coming to Northern Ireland.

    Here in Britain, a deeply unpopular Conservative Prime Minister found himself mired in sleaze, weakened by his failures and a slave to the right wing of his party.

    So whilst much has change, not everything has changed…

    Then, just as now the Labour Party had put itself in position to be the next government staking out the centre ground, and building plans to take the country forward to a new era.

    The big difference, I think, with 1996, is that we have lost that sense of optimism.

    After a decade of low growth under the Tories. Taxes are rising and inflation is rampant and doing huge damage to households and businesses.

    In 2022, Britain is stuck.

    Stuck with an economy where wages have flatlined and household bills are going through the roof.

    Stuck with broken public services that no longer work for those that they serve.

    Stuck in queues for passports or driving licences.

    Stuck waiting for delayed trains and buses.

    Stuck on hold as we try to get a doctor’s appointment.

    Britain is also stuck with a government that has no plan.

    One that was elected on a promise to get Brexit done but has now decided to re-open those old divisions, in order to ensure Britain remains stuck with this failed Prime Minister.

    While the Conservatives are flailing around, Labour has been claiming the centre ground of British politics once again.

    Not a mushy place of compromise but a place driven by purpose, a place driven by optimism.

    Our driving mission is to get Britain’s economy growing again so we can ensure the people and the places who for too long have lost out are once again revitalised and re-energised.

    I am going to be saying a lot about that in the coming weeks and months.

    But the first step in doing so, is to ensure Britain thrives in its new role in the world by ensuring we Make Brexit Work.

    There are some who say “we don’t need to make Brexit work – we need to reverse it.”

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    Because you cannot move forward or grow the country or deliver change or win back the trust of those who have lost faith in politics, if you’re constantly focused on the arguments of the past.

    We cannot afford to look back over our shoulder because all the time we are doing that we are missing what is ahead of us.

    So let me be very clear.

    Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.

    We will not be joining the single market or the customs union.

    Now, I know some people don’t want to hear that, but it is my job to be frank and to be honest – and you will always get that with me.

    The reason I say this is simple.

    Nothing about revisiting those rows will help stimulate growth or bring down food prices or help British business thrive in the modern world.

    It would simply be a recipe for more division, it would distract us from taking on the challenges facing people and it would ensure Britain remained stuck for another decade.

    Under Labour, that simply will not happen.

    What you will get under Labour is a plan.

    One that will deliver on the opportunities Britain has, to sort out the poor deal Boris Johnson signed, and end the Brexit divisions once and for all.

    It is a proper plan to Make Brexit Work.

    Now, I know I’d never be allowed to take this stage without telling you what that plan looks like, so let me set out for you how it works.

    The first step is clear and obvious.

    We have to sort out the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    If you’re going to Make Brexit Work, that has to be the starting point.

    Just a few weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of being in Dublin and in Belfast, where I worked for many years.

    I was struck by the fact that businesses there are clear – they can make the Protocol work.

    The solutions are there, the desire is there. What is lacking is trust.

    That crucial ingredient that has always characterised progress in relations between our islands. That has been eroded by this government.

    Labour will change that.

    We will be the honest broker our countries need; we will get the protocol working and we will make it the springboard to securing a better deal for the British people.

    As well as building trust, Labour would eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal with a new veterinary agreement for agri-products between the UK and EU.

    And we will work with business to put in place a better scheme to allow low-risk goods to enter Northern Ireland without unnecessary checks.

    The second step we would take is to tear down unnecessary barriers.

    Of course we recognise, outside of the Single Market and a Customs Union we will not be able to deliver complete frictionless trade with the EU.

    But there are things we can do to make trade easier.

    Labour would extend that new veterinary agreement to cover all the UK, seeking to build on agreements and mechanisms already in place between the EU and other countries – benefiting our exporters at a stroke.

    There was a story on the news the other day about a ‘wet wipe island’ that has formed in the Thames. Made of fat and oil and household rubbish one metre deep and the size of two tennis courts. It is blocking the flow of the river and changing the shape of the riverbed.

    You couldn’t imagine a better metaphor for the Tory Brexit deal.

    They have created a hulking ‘fatberg’ of red tape and bureaucracy.

    One that is hampering the flow of British business.

    We will break that barrier down, remove that fatberg – unclog the arteries of our economy and allow trade to flourish once more.

    The third step will be to support Britain’s world-leading industries.

    That means mutual recognition of professional qualifications ensuring our services can compete and restoring access to funding and vital research programmes.

    Step four would be to ensure we keep Britain safe.

    For too long, the Government has been blasé about European security.

    The actions of (Vladimir) Putin must jolt us back into reality.

    Because in the modern world if one of us is not safe then none of us are safe.

    Strengthening security cooperation with our friends and allies is vital.

    I know from first-hand experience during my time as Director of Public Prosecutions that we cannot take risks with terrorism, organised crime and people trafficking.

    That’s why Labour will seek new security arrangements to defend our borders, and why we will share data, intelligence, and best practice. And it’s why we will set up joint intelligence working here and in Europe.

    The final part of our plan will be to invest in Britain.

    The lesson of the last decade is that if we are to achieve economic growth and see the benefits flowing to every part of our country, we cannot be bystanders.

    The Tory plan as set out by Jacob Rees-Mogg is about cutting standards, regulations, and protections before stepping back and gawping at the power of the market.

    This will not work.

    It is a sure-fire way for Britain to lose the global race for jobs and for trade.

    It will exacerbate the problems we already face; it will not deliver on the promise of Brexit.

    Labour’s plan is very different.

    We will work hand-in-hand with business to bring the good, clean jobs of the future to our shores, harnessing the power of government, alongside the ingenuity of our brilliant private sector.

    Together, we will open up new markets and create new opportunities.

    The government have missed Brexit opportunities time and time again.

    It beggars belief that during a cost-of-living crisis they haven’t cut VAT on energy bills.

    Labour will be sharper than this.

    We will use our flexibility outside of the EU to ensure British regulation is adapted to suit British needs.

    That is Labour’s plan to Make Brexit Work.

    It is a plan that puts the divisions of the past behind us and seizes on the challenges and opportunities of the future.

    It is a plan that that helps everyone from exporters to musicians – to thrive.

    It’s a plan to reverse the Tory spiral of low-growth and high-tax.

    A plan that puts Britain in the best place to compete on the global stage.

    A plan that will help us achieve our central mission of delivering economic growth to Britain and spreading it throughout the country.

    But there is something even more crucial than that.

    In 2016, the British people voted for change.

    The very narrow question that was on the ballot paper – leaving or remaining in the EU – is now in the past.

    But the hope that underpinned that vote – the desire for a better, fairer future for our country is no closer to being delivered.

    We will not return to freedom of movement to create short term fixes, instead we will invest in our people and our places, and deliver on the promise our country has.

    If we are to restore faith in politics as a force for good, we must now get on with delivering on that promise.

    The Tories have no idea how to do it.

    Labour does. Labour has a plan.

    And this plan, a plan to Make Brexit Work is the first stage of delivering on that change and delivering a better future for our country.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Labour Winning Wakefield By-Election

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Labour Winning Wakefield By-Election

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 24 June 2022.

    Wakefield’s win will go down in history Simon Lightwood. I’m so proud of our Labour Party and the changes we’ve made to be a government in waiting.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Confidence Vote

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Confidence Vote

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 June 2022.

    The choice is clearer than ever before:

    Divided Tories propping up Boris Johnson with no plan to tackle the issues you are facing.

    Or a united Labour Party with a plan to fix the cost of living crisis and restore trust in politics.

    Labour will get Britain back on track.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on the Sue Gray Report

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 25 May 2022.

    The door of No. 10 Downing Street is one of the great symbols of our democracy. Those who live behind it exercise great power, but they do so knowing that their stay is temporary. Long after they have gone, that door and the democracy it represents will remain firm and unyielding. But Britain’s constitution is fragile. It relies on Members of this House and the custodians of No. 10 behaving responsibly, honestly and in the interests of the British people. When our leaders fall short of those standards, this House has to act.

    For months, Conservative Members have asked the country to wait—first for the police investigation, which concluded that this Prime Minister is the first in our country’s history to have broken the law in office, and then for the Sue Gray report. They need wait no longer. That report lays bare the rot that, under this Prime Minister, has spread in No. 10, and it provides definitive proof of how those within the building treated the sacrifices of the British people with utter contempt. When the dust settles and the anger subsides, this report will stand as a monument to the hubris and arrogance of a Government who believed it was one rule for them, and another rule for everyone else.

    The details are stark. Five months ago, the Prime Minister told this House that all guidance was completely followed in No. 10, yet we now know he attended events on 17 December. At least one of those attending has received a fine for it, deeming it illegal. We know that on 18 December, an event was held in which staff “drank excessively”, which others in the building described as a “party”, and that cleaners were left to mop up the red wine the next day. On 20 May, as a covid press conference was taking place, one of the Prime Minister’s senior officials was told, “Be mindful; cameras are leaving. Don’t walk about waving bottles.”

    It is now impossible to defend the Prime Minister’s words to this House. This is about trust. During that 20 May press conference, the British public were told that normal life as we know it was a long way off, but that was not the case in No. 10. Even now, after 126 fines, they think it is everyone else’s fault but theirs. They expect others to take the blame while they cling on. They pretend that the Prime Minister has somehow been exonerated, as if the fact that he only broke the law once is worthy of praise. The truth is that they set the bar for his conduct lower than a snake’s belly, and now they expect the rest of us to congratulate him as he stumbles over it.

    No. 10 symbolises the principles of public life in this country: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. But who could read this report and honestly believe that the Prime Minister has upheld those standards? The reason the British public have had to endure this farce was his refusal to admit the truth or do the decent thing when he was found to have broken the law. This report was necessary because of what Sue Gray describes as

    “failures of leadership and judgment”,

    for which senior political leadership “must bear responsibility”. It is that failure of leadership that has now left his Government paralysed in the middle of a cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has turned the focus of his Government to saving his own skin. It is utterly shameful. It is precisely because he cannot lead that it falls to others to do so. I have been clear what leadership looks like. [Interruption.] I have not broken any rules, and any attempt—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Can I just calm it down? Quite rightly, I wanted to hear the Prime Minister; the same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. Those who do not wish to hear, please go and have a cup of tea or something.

    Keir Starmer

    I have been clear what leadership looks like. I have not broken any rules, and any attempt to compare a perfectly legal takeaway while working to this catalogue of criminality looks even more ridiculous today, but if the police decide otherwise, I will do the decent thing and step down. The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.

    Conservative Members now also need to show leadership. This Prime Minister is steering the country in the wrong direction. Conservative Members can hide in the back seat, eyes covered, praying for a miracle, or they can act to stop this out-of-touch, out-of-control Prime Minister driving Britain towards disaster. We waited for the Sue Gray report. The country cannot wait any longer. The values symbolised by the door of No. 10 must be restored. Conservative Members must finally do their bit. They must tell the current inhabitant, their leader, that this has gone on too long. The game is up. You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker, and it is time to pack his bags. Only then can the Government function again. Only then can the rot be carved out. Only then can we restore the dignity of that great office and the democracy that it represents.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments Calling for the Resignation of the Prime Minister

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments Calling for the Resignation of the Prime Minister

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 25 May 2022.

    The door of 10 Downing Street is one of the great symbols of British democracy. A democracy which relies on the principles of honesty and integrity. Its current inhabitant has failed to uphold these principles. Boris Johnson must go.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Attacks at Funeral of Shireen Abu Aqla

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Attacks at Funeral of Shireen Abu Aqla

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 14 May 2022.

    The attacks on mourners at the funeral of the journalist, Shireen Abu Aqla, have shocked the world.

    The Labour Party unequivocally condemns the violence by Israeli forces.

    Our thoughts are with Shireen’s family and all those who mourn her death.

    For them, this violence is only deepening their pain.

    The Labour Party stands with all those demanding accountability for the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla. International law and human rights must be upheld. There must be an independent and impartial inquiry to secure accountability for Shireen’s death.

    We will continue to support justice and the protection of human rights for the Palestinian people, and a sovereign Palestine alongside a secure Israel.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2022.

    Before I turn to the Address, I thank His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for delivering the Address this morning. I, too, pay tribute to Her Majesty in the year of her platinum jubilee. Her dedication to Britain has been a reassuring constant in an ever-changing world, her commitment to public duty a reminder of the responsibilities that we all owe each other, and her dignity and leadership an inspiration to all of us. She will forever have all our thanks for 70 years of service to our country. We all wish her well.

    I congratulate the Prime Minister, who has achieved a new first: the first resident of Downing Street to be a constituent of a Labour council. I am sure that it will serve him well. I also congratulate the mover and seconder on their fine and funny speeches. I understand that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) owns over 900 copies of Eagle comic books. He is no old duffer. He is an extensive collector of the adventures of Dan Dare from the Inter-Planet Patrol: a comic book with a hero with a moral message, a spirit that he has channelled into his 17 years in this House. Although there is some mischief in him, as he demonstrated in his speech—I particularly liked his advice that you should not make an enemy of your party leader—so I think he is a little bit more Dennis the Menace.

    The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) is dedicated not only to what was obviously a punishing consultation exercise on what to put into her speech but a punishing exercise regime. She is a former cox with Twickenham Rowing Club, a half-marathon runner and even an ironman competitor. Maybe she is an iron lady in the making.

    I know that if they were here, David Amess and James Brokenshire would have been proud of both the mover and the seconder. We all miss them both. I know that the pain on the Conservative Benches is still raw, with their friends taken too soon, but their passing leaves us united in our resolve to defeat the evils of both extremism and cancer.

    I also want to pay tribute to my dear friend, Jack Dromey. Jack picked fights on behalf of working people, and he won them. In 1975, he led the first Equal Pay Act strike. He campaigned for the rights of cleaners everywhere, from the House of Commons to MI5, and, in the last year of his life, he campaigned for a public inquiry on behalf of the families bereaved by covid. The only way in which we on the Labour Benches can really pay tribute to Jack is by aspiring to champion working people as well as he did.

    Times are hard, but they are much tougher than they should be. As we emerge from the pandemic, find a new place in the world outside the European Union and transition to a carbon-neutral economy, our country faces great challenges, but at the same time, great opportunities are within our reach. We can rebuild stronger, learning where our society and our services need more resilience. We can do more than just get Brexit done; we can ensure that Britain is in the best position to thrive outside the European Union, and we can lead the world in zero-carbon industries, generating high-skilled, high-wage jobs across the country. But for that to happen, we need a Government of the moment with the ideas that meet the aspirations of the British public. This thin Address, bereft of ideas or purpose and without a guiding principle or a road map for delivery, shows just how far the Government are from that. Too out of touch to meet the challenges of the moment, too tired to grasp the opportunities of the future, their time has passed.

    The first great challenge our country faces is the cost of living crisis. Inflation stands at 7% and rising; household bills have gone up by hundreds of pounds; the cost of the weekly shop has rocketed; and people are seeing their wages run out much earlier in the month and the value of their savings fall. I wish I could say that the worst is over, but last Thursday the Bank of England revised down Britain’s growth and revised up inflation. This Government’s failure to grow the economy over a decade, combined with their inertia in the face of spiralling bills, means that we are staring down the barrel of something we have not seen in decades: a stagflation crisis. That is a truly shocking legacy of this Government. It should humble those on the Conservative Benches who have ignored the red lights on our economy even while wages were frozen for over a decade, and whose complacency is best summed up by a Prime Minister whose response to the crisis was to make fun of those who were worrying about inflation.

    A Government of the moment would use the great powers they have to tackle this head on and bring forward an emergency Budget with a windfall tax for oil and gas producers which would raise billions—money that could be used to slash the cost of energy bills and help businesses keep their costs down. Even the bosses at BP do not agree when the Prime Minister says it would deter investment. It is a common sense solution, but instead the Government are bereft of leadership: the Chancellor ruling the windfall tax in, the Business Secretary ruling it out, and a Prime Minister who does not know what he thinks.

    It is not just about the short-term measures. A Government of the moment would take a step back from the crisis and ensure that Britain is never again so vulnerable to a surge in international prices, forced to go cap in hand from dictator to dictator looking for a quick fix of imported oil. That means standing up to those vested interests who oppose onshore wind, the cheapest and most reliable source of electricity that we have, but this Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers. It means investing in the insulation we need to use less energy in our homes. That would take £400 off energy bills every year and cut gas imports by 15%, but this Prime Minister is far too concerned with vanity projects ever to prioritise investment in insulating homes. So we are left with an energy Bill not up to the moment. It is the latest chapter in a pathetic response to the cost of living crisis. Where there should have been support, it has been tax rise after tax rise on working people—the only country in the G7 to do so during a cost of living crisis.

    The low growth that led to the stagnation we see today is the same reason wages have been frozen for so long. Over 12 years of Tory Government the economy has grown far slower than when Labour was in power, and it is set to go even slower in coming years—the slowest-growing economy in the G7 next year. As the director general of the CBI said:

    “For a country that is used to growth at 2 – 2.5%”—

    the Conservative record—

    “is simply not good enough.”

    We cannot afford to go on like this. If the Tories had simply matched Labour’s record on growth in Government, people would have had higher incomes, boosting public finances, and we could have spent over £40 billion more on public services without having to raise a single tax.

    So the second great challenge our country faces is to get Britain growing again. A Government of the moment would have grasped the nettle and set out a new approach to the economy; an approach based on a stronger partnership between Government and businesses; a partnership dedicated to growth. There would have been an industrial strategy to grow the industries of the future, with the Government providing initial investment that brings confidence and security and acts as a catalyst for the private sector to invest in gigafactories, hydrogen and steel—in high productivity jobs right here in Britain. A Government of the moment would finally abolish business rates and replace them with a fair system that creates a level playing field with online giants, so that our businesses can compete, invest and grow. And a Government of the moment would have a plan to revive our town centres with new businesses, providing finance for a new generation of start-ups in our town centres and giving councils the power to take over empty shops and fill the space with workshops and offices offering the jobs of the future.

    Instead of that new approach to the economy, we have a Chancellor who thinks it would be silly to do anything different; a Chancellor who, rather than partnering with business, has loaded them up with debt and wonders why they are struggling to invest; a Chancellor who seems content to have the slowest growth of any G20 country bar one, Russia; a Chancellor whose legacy will be low growth, high inflation and high tax, and with it, the diminishing of Britain’s living standards—no hope of taking on the big challenges, no hope of seizing the great opportunities, hopeless. And because the Government are not up to the challenge of growing the economy, all those tax hikes are not going into improving public services, with no chance of a doctor’s appointment, people forced to wait months for urgent mental health treatment, and super-sized classrooms the norm again. Never before have people been asked to pay so much for so little.

    The third great challenge we face is ending the poverty of ambition that this Government have for our public services. That means a Government of the moment relentlessly focused on school improvement. Labour would improve leadership and teaching standards at state schools, funding it by ending tax breaks for private schools. It means a Government of the moment that would finally deliver world-class mental health provision that matches years of empty rhetoric on parity with physical health. Labour would hire new clinicians so that we can guarantee mental health treatment in four weeks, paid for by closing loopholes to private equity firms.

    Instead, we have a Government that went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and have no plan to get them down any time soon; a Government that take the public for fools by pretending that refurbishing a wing of a hospital is the same as building a new hospital; a Government that cannot hire the GPs they promised or get the GPs we have to see more patients—lost in spin, with no ambition, not up to the challenge of the moment.

    It is not just education and health that need reform. Fraud has become commonplace, with 7 million incidents a year and Britain routinely ripped off, but the Business Secretary has suggested that it does not even count as crime. Fraud is just the tip of the iceberg. Victims are being let down while this Government let violent criminals off. The overall charge rate stands at a pathetic 5.8%, meaning that huge swathes of serious offences like rape, knife crime and theft have effectively been decriminalised.

    A Government of the moment would say, “Enough is enough”—[Interruption.] Nobody can be proud of this record of 12 years. A Government of the moment would invest in community policing, pulling resources away from vanity projects like the Prime Minister’s ministerial yacht. They would strengthen protection for victims of crime and antisocial behaviour and increase the number of specialist rape units in the justice system so that it stops routinely failing women. Instead, we have a Government who talk tough while letting the justice system fall apart—no care for victims or their communities, not good enough, not up to the moment. We have a Government whose time has passed, a Cabinet out of ideas and out of energy, led by a Prime Minister who is entirely out of touch.

    It does not have to be this way; it will not always be this way. A Labour Government would tackle the cost of living crisis head on, get Britain growing again after 12 years of failure, and improve public services so that they deliver for the people paying for them. A Labour Government would rise to the moment where this Government have badly failed.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Referring Boris Johnson to the Committee of Privileges

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Referring Boris Johnson to the Committee of Privileges

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move,

    That this House

    (1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and

    (2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded.

    The motion seeks to defend the simple principle that honesty, integrity and telling the truth matter in our politics. That is not a principle that I or the Labour party have a special claim to. It is a British principle. It is a principle that has been cherished by Conservatives for as long as their party has existed. It is embraced by Unionist and nationalist parties alike and still guides members from every political party in this House.

    Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)

    I lost my mother to covid in the first lockdown. It was a very painful experience because she was in a hospital bed and, as we obeyed the rules, we could not be by her side when she passed. I have made my disquiet known to the Prime Minister a couple of times, and he has taken that on board. I am deeply unhappy about how No. 10 performed over the period in question. However, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Member that it is perfectly natural in this country to weigh all the evidence before deciding on intent. As the central issue is whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, does he agree that, in us all accepting that the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee, that Committee needs to weigh all the evidence before coming to a decision, and that that includes the Sue Gray report?

    Mr Speaker

    Order. May I say to Members that interventions are meant to be short? If you are on the list to speak and you intervene—I know that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is not and would not want to be as he has made his speech—you will go down the list.

    Keir Starmer

    I am sorry for the loss in the hon. Member’s family. We all send our condolences. I know how difficult it has been for so many during this period. In relation to the substantive intervention, I have two points, which I will develop later. First, there is already a clear case before the House: the Prime Minister said “no…rules were broken”, and 50 fines for breaking the rules and the law have already been issued, so there is already a reasonable case. Secondly—I understand the sentiment behind the intervention—if the motion is passed, the Committee will not begin its substantive work until the police investigations are complete, so it will have all the evidence before it, one way or the other, to come to a view. That is within the body of the motion and is the right way; the way it should work. I hope that addresses the concerns raised.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), many of us in the Chamber have lost loved ones in the last period of time and feel greatly aggrieved that we have not had our day in court, if that is perhaps the way to put it. We feel the need to have justice seen for all those who have lost loved ones—those who passed away and whom we miss greatly. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that, when it comes to justice, while we do need to see all the evidence, there must be accountability in the process, and accountability means that people have to answer for their actions?

    Keir Starmer

    Again, I express my sadness at the loss that the hon. Member and his family have endured. I was particularly struck—I think we all were—by how he spoke about that in this House just a few months ago.

    On the substantive point, which is the point of the motion, this is about honesty, integrity and telling the truth in this place. It is an important principle, and one that we all share—as I say, I do not claim it as a Labour party principle—because we know the importance of it. That is why it is a matter for the House to consider. But it is a principle under attack, because the Prime Minister has been accused of repeatedly, deliberately and routinely misleading the House over parties held in Downing Street during lockdown.

    That is a serious allegation. If it is true, it amounts to contempt of Parliament. It is not, and should never be, an accusation made lightly. Nor should we diminish the rights of Members to defend each other from that accusation. But the Prime Minister’s supporters do not seek to do that. Instead, many of them seek simply to dismiss its importance. They say, “There are worse crimes,” “He didn’t rob a bank”, “He only broke the rules for 10 minutes” and, “It was all a long time ago.” Every time one of those arguments is trotted out, the status of this House is gradually eroded and our democracy becomes a little weaker. The convention that Parliament must not be misled and that, in return, we do not accuse each other of lying are not curious quirks of this strange place but fundamental pillars on which our constitution is built, and they are observed wherever parliamentary democracy thrives. With them, our public debate is elevated. When Members assume good faith on behalf of our opponents, we can explore, test and interrogate our reasonable disagreements about how we achieve our common goals. Ultimately, no matter which Benches we sit on, no matter which Whip we follow, fundamentally we are all here for one reason: to advance the common goals of the nations, of the peoples, that make up our United Kingdom.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. He mentioned some of the arguments around, “Well, it was just nine minutes.” I met a woman, the daughter of a serviceman who lost his life the week before that birthday party. She said to me, “What I wouldn’t give for just nine more minutes with him.” I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the way he is rising above party politics here. To diminish nine minutes as just anything diminishes us all across both sides of the House. Would he not agree?

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention, because it goes to the heart of the matter. Some have tried to suggest equivalence between these fixed penalty notices and speeding. That just does not understand the enormity of the difference. It is very rare that the whole nation goes through something together—a trauma together, that was covid. There are awful cases of funerals, of weddings that were missed, of parents who did not see the birth of their children. They are awful cases, but I think almost every family was marked during this period, including my own, by things we did not do that we would have liked to have done—usually visiting elderly parents and seeing children. There was a huge sense of guilt that we did not do it, including in my own family: guilt that because we followed the rules, we did not do what we thought was actually right by our elderly relatives. That is why it hurts so much. That is why anybody trying to say, “This is just like a speeding ticket” does not understand what this goes to politically and emotionally.

    Going back to the principles, I want this debate to be about the principles, because that is where I think the debate should be. The Committee will be charged, if the motion goes through, with determining whether there was any misleading. But this is about the principles we all care about. That is why I think everybody should simply vote for the motion this evening to uphold those principles. Those principles, that we do not mislead the House and in return we do not call each other liars in this House, ensure that we make good decisions and avoid bad ones. It is what makes our democracy grow in ways that reflect the hopes and tackle the fears of those we represent. It is what makes our democracy thrive. It is what makes this House thrive. It is what makes Britain thrive.

    Mr Speaker, we do not have to look far to see what happens when that faith is lost and there is no hope of reason resolving disagreements. When nations are divided, when they live in different worlds with their own truths and their own alternative facts, democracy is replaced by an obsession with defeating the other side. Those we disagree with become enemies. The hope of learning and adapting is lost. Politics becomes a blood sport rather than a quest to improve lives; a winner-takes-all politics where, inevitably, everyone loses out.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    The Leader of the Opposition was big-hearted enough to say that he unwittingly misled the House. I am sure he would agree that it is very important to stick to the convention that we do not call each other liars, and there is a good reason for that. Two of our colleagues have been killed and there have been a lot of attacks on colleagues. In this debate, can we just accept that everybody here is an honourable Member and that when they speak here, although they may unwittingly mislead the House, they think that they were, for instance, abiding with the rules? Can we tone down the whole nature of this debate?

    Keir Starmer

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I will try to keep within those parameters and elevate this debate to the principles that we apply when we debate in this Chamber.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the fact that we do not want Opposition Members to have a monopoly on truth. He makes a very important point, but does he agree that the fundamental point is about whether we as Members of Parliament are fit to hold our powers to hold people to account or whether politics will always get in the way? It was disturbing to hear that Conservative Members might vote against the motion because a Labour Chair was involved, and it is disappointing that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) felt that he had to step down. The principle of whether we either have an independent process or do it ourselves is very important.

    Keir Starmer

    That is very important. We have these procedures to hold us all to the rules of the House, and it is very important that they are applied in the right way with the right principles.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    The right hon. and learned Member is making a very powerful speech. On procedures, does he agree that there is a bigger point about Parliament’s governance structures? Our whole system of checks and balances is completely out of date. It is beyond ludicrous that the arbiter of whether the ministerial code has been broken is the person who is accused of breaking it—in this instance, the Prime Minister. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that we also need a wider look at those governance structures, which are simply not fit for purpose?

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention, because it raises a very serious point. A lot of our conventions, rules and traditions are based on the principle of honour and on the fact that Members of this House would not, other than inadvertently, mislead the House. That is why the rules are set, and they are set on that proposition. If a Member of the House—whoever that is—does not abide by those honourable principles, we have that stress test of the rules.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will take one more intervention and then I will make some progress.

    John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

    I understand completely the point made by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about toning down the rhetoric—[Interruption.] I understand that position, but let me make this point, because I have known him over the years: we cannot tone down the seriousness of this matter. I was in the Prime Minister’s constituency earlier this week; it is the neighbouring constituency to mine and we are campaigning for the London Borough of Hillingdon in the election. There is some shift in the vote from Tory to Labour because of this issue, but that is not the significant point. What is significant is the number of people we found who were totally disillusioned, who had had enough of the system and who were blaming the system itself. That is what we are fighting and campaigning for. We are campaigning to restore the credibility of our country’s democratic processes.

    Keir Starmer

    That is a really important and powerful point, because if we do not pass this motion and take this opportunity to restate the principles, we are all complicit in allowing the standards to slip. We are all complicit in allowing the public to think that we are all the same, that nobody tells the truth and that there are alternative sets of facts.

    Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will in a minute; I have given way a lot and I want to make some progress, but I will try to come back to the hon. Member.

    Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will make some progress and try to come back to hon. Members when I can.

    The conventions and the traditions that we are debating are not an accident. They have been handed down to us as the tools that protect Britain from malaise, extremism and decline. That is important, because the case against the Prime Minister is that he has abused those tools, that he has used them to protect himself rather than our democracy, and that he has turned them against all that they are supposed to support. Government Members know that the Prime Minister has stood before the House and said things that are not true, safe in the knowledge that he will not be accused of lying because he cannot be. He stood at the Dispatch Box and point-blank denied that rule breaking took place when it did, and as he did so he was hoping to gain extra protection from our good faith that no Prime Minister would ever deliberately mislead this House. He has used our faith and our conventions to cover up his misdeeds.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

    Keir Starmer

    I will just finish this point. After months of denials, absurd claims that all the rules were followed and feigned outrage at his staff discussing rule breaking, we now know that the law was broken. We know that the Prime Minister himself broke the law, and we know that he faces the possibility of being found to have broken it again and again and again.

    As the police investigation is ongoing, we do not need to make final judgment on the Prime Minister’s contempt of Parliament today. When the time comes, the Prime Minister will be able to make his case. He can put his defence—of course he can. He can make his case as his defence that his repeated misleading of Parliament was inadvertent; or that he did not understand the rules that he himself wrote, and his advisers at the heart of Downing Street either did not understand the rules or misled him when they assured him that they were followed at all times; or that he thought he was at a work event, even while the empty bottles piled up. He can make those defences when the time comes.

    Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will give way in just a minute.

    We already know that he has a case to answer. The Prime Minister said that no rules were broken, but more than 50 fines for breaching the rules and the law have now been issued, including to the Prime Minister. Anybody who denies that simple fact has their head in the sand or has given up any interest in the truth and in the traditions of our nation in order to prop up a lawbreaking Prime Minister.

    Today’s motion would refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, a Committee that has a Government majority. No one can say that the Prime Minister is not being judged by his peers. The Committee would investigate the Prime Minister for contempt only once the police had concluded their investigation. No one can say that there is prejudice to the rest of the inquiry. And, of course, any findings the Committee comes to and any sanctions it might propose would then come back before the House as a whole, so no one can say that it is too soon for the House to decide. It is a system of self-governance, and it should be, because with the great privilege that comes from sitting in this place comes the great responsibility to protect the conventions that underpin our democracy.

    Jacob Young

    On conventions, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that language is equally important? Will he therefore take this opportunity to distance himself from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that he wanted to lynch another hon. Member, and from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is sitting right next to him and who called Members on this side of the House Tory scum? He should distance himself from them.

    Keir Starmer

    That is a shame. I thought that we were having a reasonably serious debate—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. The hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) needs to sit down. In fairness to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), he has taken a lot of interventions, but I certainly do not need her standing up and waiting to catch somebody’s eye.

    Keir Starmer

    If the debate descends into a shouting match, Mr Speaker, we lose the principle that is there to defend all of us, including all the Conservative Members. We are not claiming a principle to support those on the Opposition Benches and not those on the Government Benches; it is a principle that supports us all. If we fail—

    Sir William Cash rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will take the intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

    Sir William Cash

    The Leader of the Opposition has just said, quite rightly, that this issue affects everyone in the House. Does he accept that at this moment there is a complication, namely that the Committee on Standards is conducting a report, under the aegis of Sir Ernest Ryder’s recommendations, which raises questions about whether a fair trial and natural justice are possible at this juncture? That is currently under discussion in the House. The same rule applies with regard to the question of the Committee of Privileges, which has already been criticised. I was on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that serious problems arise in relation to the need to rectify those omissions in procedural fairness.

    Keir Starmer

    I have heard the hon. Gentleman put his case on natural justice a number of times, and of course he has every right to do so. I disagree, but that is the point of the debates we have. However, a debate about natural justice, or due process, need not hold up the current process. This motion can and should be passed today, and everyone should support its being passed today to uphold the principles to which I have referred. There is a discussion to be had about natural justice—an interesting debate, in which we will take different views—but it need not hold up this process.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct to prosecute the case on the basis of principle, but there is still an amendment on the Order Paper, even if the Government will not move it, which would indicate that not everyone in the House shares his view of the importance of these principles. Does he share my view that at the conclusion of this debate there should be a Division, so that we know where every single Member of this House stands on the principles? At a time like this, on an issue like this, there should be no hiding place for anyone.

    Keir Starmer

    I agree. We have a duty here today, in relation to this motion and these principles. If we fail in that duty, the public will not forgive and forget, because this will be the Parliament that failed—failed to stand up for honesty, integrity and telling the truth in politics; failed to stand up to a Prime Minister who seeks to turn our good faith against us; and failed to stand up for our great democracy.

    It is not just the eyes of our country that are upon us. There will also be the judgment of future generations, who will look back at what Members of this great House did when our customs were tested, when its traditions were pushed to breaking point, and when we were called to stand up for honesty, for integrity and for truth.