Apprehensions and Concerns: Examining the Worries Surrounding Keir Starmer's Potential as UK Prime Minister Amidst Fears of Deception and Corporate Influence

I spent the majority of my life as a staunch supporter for the labor party, nurtured within a family deeply rooted in socialist values. Between 2018 and 2020, I actively participated as a dues-paying member of the party, openly engaging in political discourse while steadfastly supporting the Labour cause. However, this allegiance wavered about six months into Keir Starmer's leadership, as I found it deeply disheartening to witness a disingenuous shift towards the political right by an individual whom I considered to be lacking in integrity. The conduct and decisions displayed by Keir Starmer have been the primary catalyst for my decision to part ways. Notably, I'm not alone in this sentiment, as around 50,000 fellow members have also chosen to leave the Labour Party.

Keir Starmer is currently best known as the leader of the UK's opposition party, The Labour Party. Prior to his ascent through the shadow cabinet, Starmer held position as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service—a fact he often can't help but mention when commenting on crime-related events in the news. With a professional background as a QC, he primarily practiced law in areas such as human rights, international law, police, and media law. Since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minster and leader of the Conservative party in October 2022, observers note that Starmer appears to be positioning himself as a prominent contender for the role of UK Prime Minister in the upcoming general election. Some suggest that his potential success in this endeavor could be attributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings and alleged corruption within the Conservative party, implying a victory by default.

The thought of Starmer potentially securing victory and ascending to the role of the next Prime Minister evokes a sense of apprehension and deep concern within me. His track record and conduct in the past have left me with an overwhelming sense that he is not a trustworthy individual. Given the challenging times that the UK is set to confront, I find it crucial to highlight the reasons why Starmer's prior actions and behaviors make him ill-suited to guide us through the uncertain future that lies ahead.

Starmer's hostile takeover of the Labour Party, marked by his forced displacement of former leader Jeremy Corbyn, raised initial concerns about potential underlying issues within the party. A closer examination of Starmer's political and career trajectory paints a suggestive portrait—one characterized by calculated manoeuvers, a seeming lack of empathy, and a deliberate reshaping of past narratives.

Damaging Errors while head of CPS 

Initially, when examining Keir Starmer's pre-political career, he might appear as a man of honour and integrity. However, the recent revelations surrounding Andrew Malkinson's release after spending 17 years wrongfully imprisoned, raises questions about how much Starmer was aware of the case during his tenure as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 2003, Andrew was convicted of raping a woman in Manchester and received a minimum sentence of 7 years. Shockingly, he remained incarcerated for 17 years, only being exonerated and released when DNA evidence came to light. The connection to Keir Starmer arises from the fact that Starmer was the head of the CPS when the new DNA evidence became available to the agency in 2009, a significant 14 years before Andrew's eventual release.

Despite Starmer's assertion in April 2023 that he takes "full responsibility for every decision of the CPS" during his time as the Director of Public Prosecutions, he has been swift to distance himself from this specific case. He claims that the evidence related to Andrew's innocence never crossed his desk during that period. This response appears inadequate, given the gravity of an innocent man spending 17 years in prison and the trauma endured by the rape victim who believed justice had been served.

Recent revelations from case files cast doubt on Starmer's denials. These files indicate that no further action was taken and that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was not informed about the potential for new evidence. This adds complexity to Starmer's version of events.

In conclusion, the release of Andrew Malkinson after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment raises concerns about Keir Starmer's knowledge and involvement during his tenure at the CPS. The details surrounding this case and the subsequent response from Starmer warrant careful scrutiny and reflection. From the outside it appears Starmer is content to lie and cover his own back so that his leadership bid is not threatened. 

Keir Starmer's inclination to prioritize the interests of the state over moral rectitude is evident in various instances. One such illustration is his decision not to prosecute the officer involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests. Video evidence and witness statements revealed attempts by the police to obscure the truth and distort the circumstances surrounding Tomlinson's demise. Initially, Starmer chose not to pursue charges against the officer, asserting insufficient evidence for a conviction. His stance only shifted when an inquest ruled that PC Simon Harwood had unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson. This raises questions about whether Starmer's action was influenced by external pressures rather than an unwavering commitment to justice, suggesting a delayed response until compelled otherwise.

Another notorious case is the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, where Starmer once again refrained from prosecution, seemingly shielding both the state and the police at the expense of an innocent life. Similarly, in 2010, Starmer's dismissal of the possibility of prosecution in the case of Blair Peach, an anti-Nazi protestor killed by a police officer, raised eyebrows. This decision occurred despite Starmer having access to a confidential report which found the police officer had attacked Peach and other officers lied to cover up the killing. At the time, speculations arose that Starmer's choice concerning the Blair Peach case might have been influenced by his aspirations for a peerage. This juxtaposition of seeking favors from the state while avoiding holding it accountable casts doubt on the consistency of his principles.

Repeatedly, Starmer's actions appear to align with the interests of the state rather than pursuing justice irrespective of the effort involved. Notably, in 2010, writer Peter Reynolds expressed deep concern for the future of British justice under Starmer's leadership, describing him as potentially detrimental to societal harmony. Reynolds went so far as to compare Starmer's impact on society to that of a terrorist or subversive, a prescient observation indeed.

Links to corrupt intellence services 

There is a need for a closer examination of Starmer's connections to international intelligence agencies. In 2010, Starmer faced criticism for his failure to prosecute a case that would have implicated MI5 in accusations of torture. During that time, Starmer asserted that there wasn't sufficient evidence for a prosecution – a sentiment that might sound familiar. This stance is perplexing given that the government had compensated Guantanamo Bay detainees, who we now know were subjected to severe levels of torture, abduction, and wrongful imprisonment. It is quite surprising to observe that the UK government discovered sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, leading them to provide reparations to the victims. On the other hand, Starmer declared that the available evidence was insufficient to pursue prosecution. This contrast raises the question: which perspective holds true?

Interestingly, Declassified UK's Matt Kennard recently reported that after exonerating MI5 of torture allegations, Starmer attended a farewell event for the then Chief of MI5. This raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. As Declassified UK highlights, it is highly irregular for the Director of Public Prosecutions to socialize with the head of MI5. Kennard's report further discloses that Starmer engaged in networking activities during a Foreign Office reception mere months before he failed to prosecute MI6 over allegations of torture in Afghanistan. These instances clearly illustrate Starmer's inclination to prioritize the needs of the secret services and the establishment over the pursuit of justice and integrity.

A report from Declassified UK has highlighted connections between Starmer and the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to their July 2023 report, Starmer was a member of the Trilateral Commission, a group that included two former CIA heads. Alarmingly, Starmer did not disclose this involvement to the then-Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Had Corbyn been aware, he likely would have opposed such a move. Complicating matters, there are reports that the CIA harbored concerns about a potential UK government led by Corbyn and took steps to undermine his position. We've witnessed similar reactions from the United States towards countries that elect left-leaning socialist leaders, suggesting that the prospect of a UK ally being led by an individual with a strong socialist, anti-war, and anti-corruption agenda might have fueled their apprehensions.

Could it be that, during these interactions with CIA-affiliated individuals, Starmer was involved in discussions to remove Corbyn from leadership in order to allay American concerns? The fact that the meetings of the Trilateral Commission are held off the record only adds to the uncertainty. These circumstances certainly raise suspicions.

Murdoch Press Chums 

The questionable business practices of the Murdoch empire have been unmistakably evident, highlighted by instances of phone hacking, an unethical organisational culture, and a notably incestuous relationship between politicians and the newspapers. These revelations came to the forefront during the Leveson Inquiry. Often dubbed the 'King-maker,' Rupert Murdoch wields significant influence through his media outlets to shape the course of political power. Many MPs feel compelled to cultivate a favorable rapport with Murdoch in hopes of enhancing their prospects for governmental positions.

This phenomenon was starkly illustrated by the actions of former Labour PM Tony Blair. He famously embarked on a pilgrimage to an island off the Australian coast to supplicate himself before Murdoch and kiss his wrinkled feet. In return for his deference, Murdoch's newspapers threw their weight behind Blair's 1997 election campaign, resulting in a historic victory for the Labour Party. Similarly, subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers followed suit, adopting favour seeking strategies.

Given these dynamics, it's indeed perplexing why any individual apparently committed to upholding principles of truth, justice, and integrity would willingly align themselves with such a morally questionable ally, in their quest for power. 

Starmer has also opted to utilize the platform of the Murdoch-owned newspaper, The S*n, to pen articles and advance his campaign for a future prime ministerial bid. This decision has ignited controversy primarily due to The S*n's history of disseminating falsehoods during the tragic Hillsborough disaster, tarnishing the memory of the victims and Liverpool football supporters. The publication wrongly assigned blame to Liverpool supporters for their own deaths, falsely accusing them of theft from the deceased and even assaulting emergency personnel. The S*n has yet to genuinely make amends for these transgressions, leading to its complete lack of circulation in Liverpool.

It is evident that Keir Starmer was well aware of this painful history, as his own MPs raised concerns at the time. MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson said she felt deep anger at Starmer's actions, similarly MP Peter Dowd and Labour Mayor Steve Rotheram shared the same sentiments, yet he proceeded to engage with the newspaper. This raises questions about his priorities, as his willingness to associate with a publication that propagated lies and inflicted immense harm seems to underscore his ambition to become prime minister rather than taking a principled stand against such a destructive force. He has since used other Murdoch owned papers to do the same campaigning. 

Keir Starmer has also faced scrutiny for his interactions with Murdoch and his associates at various social gatherings. While some might argue that, given the attendance of the current Conservative government at these events, it could be strategically important for the opposition to also participate to avoid being at a disadvantage, I believe this situation reveals something more significant. It appears to indicate that Keir Starmer lacks the fortitude to assert himself and lacks the capability to confront individuals who have wrought havoc upon our political landscape. This is especially apparent in his efforts to maintain a positive rapport with Murdoch's empire.

This alignment raises concerns about Starmer's resolve. It suggests that he might be less inclined to challenge a system that has largely evaded accountability for its role in for instance, the phone hacking scandal. Such a stance can be interpreted as a sign of weakness in standing up to influential figures who have wielded considerable power. This raises doubts about whether, under Keir Starmer's potential prime ministership, the perspective of one individual might once again carry more weight than the collective voice of the entire nation.

Knowingly lying about Anti-Semitism to fuel his career

Labour's previous election campaign was marred by controversies surrounding Jeremy Corbyn's handling of anti-Semitism allegations. While there were genuine cases of anti-Semitism that occurred, Keir Starmer took advantage of the scandal for his own political gain, rather than genuinely supporting Jewish individuals. The Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that they "identified evidence of failure to adequately train individuals investigating anti-Semitism, harassment, and interference." Starmer leveraged this report as a shield to target individuals labeled as 'hard left' within the Labour party.

In recent times, Starmer's leadership style has taken on increasingly dictatorial characteristics. Instances of dissent or minor infractions are met with swift and unexplained removal from the party. A prominent case highlighting this was the removal of North of Tyne Metro Mayor and left-wing figure Jamie Driscoll in 2023, who was denied the opportunity to stand for re-election. His alleged transgression? Conducting an interview with acclaimed film director Ken Loach, who had been expelled from the Labour party in 2021 for questioning Israel's apartheid policies and advocating for the human rights of Palestinians.

It's worth highlighting that the Forde Report, commissioned by Keir Starmer, revealed a concerning aspect: allegations of antisemitism had been weaponized to target the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. This unfortunate manipulation of antisemitism reduced its gravity and significance. Instead of genuinely investigating these allegations, the accusation of antisemitism was misused as a tool to further antagonize individuals who were already facing intense scrutiny.

It is important to highlight that during Starmer's tenure as the leader of the party, there has been a noticeable trend of suspensions and removals disproportionately affecting Jewish individuals. Statistical estimates indicate that Jewish members were suspended at a rate 35% higher than their non-Jewish counterparts. Prominent Jewish Labour members like Diana Neslen, Heather Mendick, and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, who have voiced concerns about apartheid policies in Israel, have unfortunately found themselves expelled from the party.

Attempts by Jewish members to raise criticisms against Israel's discriminatory actions and to advocate for Palestinian human rights have often been met with severe reprisals. This concerning pattern can be attributed to Starmer's acceptance of financial support from influential far-right Zionists. Notably, in 2020, Starmer received a substantial donation of £50,000 from Trevor Chinn, a member of the executive committee of the Israeli Lobby. This financial relationship has seemingly influenced Starmer's approach, as he has not only focused on eradicating socialist elements within the party but has also demonstrated a willingness to suppress Jewish individuals who hold critical views of Israel. Starmer's unqualified endorsement of Zionism has added to the concern. 

It is disappointing to observe that, for someone with a background in human rights law, Starmer appears to prioritize the rights of Palestinians less and allows Israel's actions to go unquestioned, even in the face of persecution and murder.

The report also shed light on the deliberate efforts of the right-wing faction within the Labour Party, which Starmer currently leads. These efforts involved undermining the previous leadership, diverting campaign resources, and disregarding the wishes of the party's membership. All these actions were aimed at ousting Corbyn from leadership. A stark illustration of this is Starmer's reversal on his previous stance. Upon assuming power in 2020, he referred to Corbyn as a friend, seemingly to appease the left-wing faction. Yet, more recently, he disavowed any such friendship. What a spineless man. It does appear once an individual is no longer useful to Starmer they are abandoned and left to poltically rot. 

- It's significant to mention here that MPs that supported Starmer's original acquisition by force find themselves increasingly ostracized. It's been widely reported that Deputy Leader Angela Rayner is being sidelined in favour of Rachel Reeves. Evidently, loyalty holds absolutely no value in Starmer's realm.

U-turns on Policy and adoptions of Tory policies

During his three-year tenure as the opposition leader, Starmer's track record has been marked by multiple abrupt shifts in position. This trend has become so pervasive that the Tory Party HQ has taken to marketing Keir Starmer-themed flip-flops, emblematic of his frequent changes. While it could be contended that Starmer is merely discarding policies that have proven ineffectual, his actions could also be interpreted as an endeavor to cull left-leaning policies in pursuit of appealing to not only moderate but also right-wing conservative voters, including those who have recently defected to new parties like the Reclaim Party.

This is in deep contrast to former leader Corbyn's aspiration for a broad coalition of members supported by policies that aimed to benefit the majority, Starmer has veered to the right, advocating policies that seem to favor a narrower set of interests.

The term "Tory-lite" has been hurled into the political arena in reference to Starmer's consistently reactive decision-making. I find this label to be remarkably accurate. The series of recent U-turns has resulted in policies that now closely resemble or even mirror what the conservative party is presently advocating. Given the conservative party's weak showing in the polls, one would expect the opposition, as the name implies, to be pursuing a starkly contrasting path.

Recent reversals of position on a multitude of key issues, encompassing outsourcing the NHS, energy nationalization, universal credit, tuition fees, environmental policies, higher income taxation, House of Lords reform, renter protections, global corporation taxation, and ULEZ, have undeniably resulted in Labour adopting a platform akin to that of the Conservative Party. The implications are stark: under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, genuine transformation appears unlikely. Instead, we are faced with the prospect of persisting in the same unsatisfactory trajectory we have endured during the Tory administration.

In contrast, when U.S. President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise of rekindling hope, it resonated as a significant and profound shift in history. However, with Starmer it's a narrative of "same shit, different day," devoid of substantial change.

Roping Labour to the mast of global business whatever the consequences 

My concerns regarding the potential of Starmer's election victory are further amplified by his close ties with big business. Starmer and his top team have conspicuously courted various businesses and bankers, leaving little room for ambiguity. Interestingly, it has been observed that Starmer and his associates have allocated more time to socializing with business figures than to engaging with educational institutions or healthcare facilities. This prompts a significant question: have Starmer's allegiances shifted and if so, to whom does he truly cater?

Evidently, there is a discernible detachment from Labour's working-class origins in Starmer's conduct. Instead of advocating for the welfare of workers and the empowerment of trade unions, he appears to be more comfortable indulging in convivial gatherings with bankers, evidenced by his preference for elitist belini and champagne receptions. This striking preference raises concerns about the sincerity of his commitment to the values that the Labour party once stood for.

Notably, Starmer's recent concentrated effort to charm the business sector has coincided with a notable upsurge in donations from multinational corporations. This confluence of events underscores a growing perception that big business perceives Starmer as a leader who poses no substantial threat to their profit margins. It has become increasingly evident that his policies and approach align more with their interests, rather than championing the concerns of ordinary workers or safeguarding the role of trade unions.

In the UK inflation has surged, and there's been a misleading narrative from the Conservatives, suggesting that individuals requesting higher wages to counter inflation are actually exacerbating the problem. However, this assertion is not accurate. A report from the IMF has revealed that the primary driver of inflation is, in fact, corporate profits. In simple terms, corporations are raising their prices due to their increased desire for greater profits. Corporations are intensifying their efforts in the aftermath of COVID-19, aiming to not only recoup the profits lost during the pandemic but also capitalize on the prevailing 'greedflation' climate. This pivotal dynamic lies at the core of the existing inflationary patterns we are grappling with. Compounding the issue is the unethical exploitation by energy companies, capitalizing on the turmoil in Ukraine to further enrich themselves.

Under Starmer's leadership, it's plausible that this pattern would persist. There are already indications of his departure from the traditional principles of worker's rights and the foundational values of unionism that originally shaped the Labour Party. The transformation of the Labour Party under Starmer's guidance has inadvertently favoured major corporations, enabling them to exploit people in the pursuit of profit as well as continuing to push individuals into dire poverty. As it stands, the convergence of Starmer's leadership and corporate interests threatens to perpetuate a cycle of inequality and economic hardship.

- At present, Rachel Reeves, Labour's shadow chancellor, has made a noteworthy declaration that the party will not pursue elevated taxes for the wealthiest individuals, nor will it consider raising capital gains tax or the top income rate. This straightforwardly implies that Labour is aligning itself more with the interests of the affluent rather than addressing the needs of the less fortunate, which is undeniably sickening. 

All in all I do not trust Keir Starmer. His behaviour, actions and lies send a shiver down my spine, it causes an uneasy knot in my stomach. His connections to the intelligence establishment raise concerns for me. Additionally, his affiliation with the Murdoch Press machine is troubling. It's disheartening to see him involved in cases where innocent individuals are wrongly convicted, even when evidence suggests otherwise. His tendency to switch stances on policies, often tailoring his views to his campaign audience rather than membership wishes, further erodes my confidence. Most importantly, I find it difficult to rely on someone who seems more inclined to align himself with wealthy billionaires and faceless global conglomerates, rather than prioritizing the well-being of the average working person. With Starmer at the helm the establishment is free to further ruin this country unchecked. 

Keir Starmer is likely to be our next Prime Minster and it's going to be a tough pill to swallow. 

God help us all. 

*Please take note that throughout this article, I will refrain from referring to Keir Starmer as 'Sir Keir Starmer.' This stance is rooted in my personal refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of these honors conferred by an institution and monarchy that I perceive as corrupt.