Placeholder

 

Having emasculated their own Prime Minister, Labour backbenchers have subjected themselves and the country to four years of a continued decline.

The government will be unable to make/enact any major policy decisions, and will just stand by and wring its hands in faux horror at the demise of Britain.

Starmer Is Finished

 

When the whips have to tell their own MPs to turn up to listen to their PM, you know that Starmer is finished!

Starmer’s Welfare Bill Fiasco: A Masterclass in Political Ineptitude

 

In a display of breathtaking incompetence, Keir Starmer and his cabinet have managed to turn a routine welfare reform bill into a full-blown rebellion within their own party, proving once again that Labour’s grip on leadership is as firm as a wet noodle. The government’s attempt to strong-arm wavering MPs into supporting a controversial £5 billion cut to disability and sickness benefits has backfired spectacularly, swelling the ranks of rebels and exposing Starmer’s leadership as a chaotic mess. This is not just a policy misstep; it’s a clown show in Westminster, with Starmer and his team tripping over their own feet at every turn.

 

Let’s start with the cabinet’s brilliant strategy: ringing up MPs to bully them into toeing the line. According to reports, government figures, including whips and aides, frantically dialled Labour MPs to warn them that next Tuesday’s vote on the welfare bill was a matter of confidence in Starmer’s leadership. The message was clear: rebel, and you’re effectively toppling the government. This heavy-handed tactic, presumably meant to instill fear and loyalty, instead had the opposite effect. Rather than cowing MPs into submission, it riled them up, with the number of rebels swelling to over 120, including 59 new MPs who apparently didn’t get the memo about being “ultra-loyal.” It’s almost as if Starmer’s team forgot that MPs, even Labour ones, don’t take kindly to being treated like naughty schoolchildren.

 

Then came the U-turn. After initially framing the vote as a do-or-die moment for Starmer’s premiership, the government backpedalled faster than a cyclist in a windstorm. By Tuesday, Starmer was insisting that the vote was not a confidence issue, a claim echoed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who denied rumours that the bill was on the brink of being pulled. This flip-flop only deepened the chaos, as MPs, already incensed by the government’s strong-arm tactics, saw through the desperate attempt to save face. The result? A rebellion that now threatens to derail the entire bill, with up to 100 MPs, including senior figures and even a dozen ministers, reportedly ready to vote against it or abstain.

 

And here’s the kicker: despite Rayner’s protestations, whispers are growing louder that the government is poised to pull the bill entirely. Sources suggest that Labour’s leadership, realising they’ve painted themselves into a corner, may quietly shelve the legislation rather than face a humiliating defeat. This would be a stunning admission of failure for a government that campaigned on “change” but seems incapable of managing even the most basic parliamentary arithmetic.

 

Now, let’s talk about the bill itself. Welfare costs in the UK are undeniably spiralling, with disability and sickness benefits ballooning to unsustainable levels. The proposed £5 billion cut, aimed at trimming the welfare budget by 2030, is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the problem. Yet, Labour’s rebels—apparently more interested in grandstanding than governing—have decided that even this modest attempt at fiscal responsibility is a step too far. Instead of proposing a coherent alternative, they’ve opted for a tantrum, signing a “reasoned amendment” to kill the bill outright. It’s a classic case of Labour wanting to have its cake and eat it too: decrying out-of-control welfare costs while refusing to support any cuts whatsoever.

 

But the real ridicule belongs to Starmer and his cabinet, who have turned a winnable policy fight into a self-inflicted wound. The government’s whips were so inept that they reportedly resorted to dirty tricks, with some MPs told their colleagues were removing their names from the rebel amendment to pressure them into backing down. This kind of playground-level scheming didn’t just fail—it galvanised the rebellion, turning what might have been a manageable dissent into a full-scale revolt. Even Kemi Badenoch, ever the opportunist, has swooped in, offering to “rescue” Starmer’s reforms with Conservative support—a stinging embarrassment for a Labour government that can’t even rally its own troops.

 

Starmer’s defenders might argue that he’s trying to tackle a tough issue with bold reforms. But boldness requires competence, and this government has shown none. The welfare bill debacle is a microcosm of Labour’s broader uselessness: unable to control its own MPs, incapable of sticking to a strategy, and unwilling to face the hard truths about Britain’s ballooning welfare state. If they can’t even push through a paltry £5 billion cut without imploding, what hope do they have of tackling the bigger challenges facing the country?

 

In the end, Starmer’s leadership is looking less like a vision for change and more like a slow-motion trainwreck. The welfare bill, once a flagship reform, is now a symbol of Labour’s disarray—riddled with U-turns, missteps, and a rebellion that could have been avoided with a modicum of political savvy. As the vote looms, one thing is clear: Starmer and his cabinet aren’t just fighting their own party—they’re losing spectacularly. Pass the popcorn.

Trump Used Starmer as Chaff

 

In a stunning display of geopolitical manoeuvring, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly used U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer as a decoy—akin to chaff deployed to confuse radar—in the lead-up to the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. The operation, which targeted key sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, was a bold escalation in the Middle East, catching many allies, including Starmer, off guard. This article explores how Trump leveraged Starmer’s public statements and diplomatic posturing to create a smokescreen for the attack, while highlighting Starmer’s perceived weakness and the apparent lack of regard Trump holds for the British leader.

The Chaff Strategy: Trump’s Deceptive Play

Chaff, in military terms, is a countermeasure used to confuse enemy radar by scattering false signals. In the context of the U.S. bombing of Iran, Trump’s interactions with Starmer served a similar purpose: to project an image of restraint and diplomacy while secretly preparing for a decisive military strike. At the G7 summit in Canada, just days before the attack, Starmer sat next to Trump during a dinner and emerged with the impression that the U.S. would not intervene militarily in the Iran-Israel conflict. Starmer’s subsequent public statements reflected this belief, emphasising de-escalation and diplomacy as the path forward.

 

Unbeknownst to Starmer, Trump was orchestrating a complex operation involving B-2 stealth bombers flying 18-hour missions from Missouri, supported by decoy deployments to Guam and a carefully timed barrage of cruise missiles. The Pentagon later revealed that the Guam deployment was a deliberate ruse to divert attention from the Atlantic-bound bombers. Meanwhile, Trump’s team reportedly used Starmer’s vocal calls for restraint—amplified through media and diplomatic channels—as a way to lull Iran into a false sense of security. Posts on X suggest that Trump intentionally fed Starmer the impression of inaction, with one user claiming the operation was nicknamed “Operation Starmer” to mock the U.K. leader’s unwitting role in the deception.

 

This calculated move was further underscored by Trump’s public silence on the matter until the strikes were underway, when he announced on Truth Social that the nuclear sites were “completely and fully obliterated.” Starmer, left blindsided, was forced to issue a statement hours later, balancing support for the U.S. goal of preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions with warnings about escalation risks. The contrast between Trump’s decisive action and Starmer’s reactive diplomacy painted a picture of a U.K. leader outmanoeuvred and out of the loop.

Starmer’s Weakness: A Diplomatic Tightrope Unravelled

Keir Starmer’s response to the U.S. strikes highlighted his precarious position on the global stage. Throughout the week leading up to the bombing, Starmer had been vocal about the need for de-escalation, urging Iran to return to negotiations and warning of the broader risks of conflict. His statements aligned with the E3 (U.K., France, and Germany) joint position, which emphasised preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons through diplomatic means. Yet, when Trump authorised the strikes, Starmer’s calls for restraint were rendered irrelevant, exposing his limited influence over U.S. policy.

 

Starmer’s diplomatic tightrope was further complicated by domestic pressures. Reports suggest he declined a U.S. request to participate in the strikes, possibly due to concerns about the Muslim vote in the U.K. and internal government debates about the legality of involvement. This decision, while consistent with his push for diplomacy, left the U.K. sidelined in a major military operation by its closest ally. Social media sentiment on X was scathing, with users describing Starmer as “humiliated” and “cut out of decision-making” by both the U.S. and Israel. One post even suggested Starmer’s naivety in believing Trump’s assurances was “dangerously naive,” pointing to his failure to anticipate the U.S. president’s true intentions.

 

Starmer’s post-strike response did little to restore confidence in his leadership. His statement acknowledged the threat of Iran’s nuclear program but stopped short of endorsing the U.S. methods, a careful wording that avoided direct criticism of Trump while reiterating the need for negotiations. This balancing act, while diplomatically prudent, underscored his inability to shape events, leaving the U.K. trailing behind the U.S. and even European allies like France and Germany, who also backed the goal but not the means.

Trump’s Disregard: A Friendship Without Influence

Despite Starmer’s efforts to build a rapport with Trump—highlighted by an early White House visit in February 2025 and Trump’s warm remarks about their G7 interactions—the U.S. president’s actions suggest a profound lack of regard for the U.K. leader. Trump’s reported description of Starmer as a “friend” at the G7 summit was a superficial gesture, as the subsequent bombing operation demonstrated. Starmer’s belief that he had insight into Trump’s plans was shattered when the U.S. proceeded without consulting or informing the U.K., leaving Starmer to learn of the strikes after the fact.

 

Social media posts on X amplified this narrative, with users claiming Trump “trolled” Starmer by feeding him false assurances, knowing the U.K. leader would broadcast them publicly. Others suggested Trump viewed Starmer as a useful pawn, leveraging his diplomatic posturing to mask U.S. intentions. The fact that Trump did not involve the U.K.—despite speculation that U.S. bombers might have used the British-controlled Diego Garcia airbase as a waypoint—further underscored Starmer’s marginalisation.

 

Trump’s broader approach to the Iran crisis reinforces this dynamic. His decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, described as a “textbook operation” by the Washington Examiner, was a unilateral move that ignored allied calls for restraint, including Starmer’s. Even after brokering a fragile ceasefire on June 23, 2025, Trump expressed frustration when both Iran and Israel violated it, accusing them of betraying his efforts. Starmer’s absence from these high-stakes negotiations, despite his earlier conversations with Trump, further highlighted his lack of influence.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Power Dynamics

The U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, executed with precision and secrecy, was a geopolitical masterstroke by Donald Trump, who used Keir Starmer’s diplomatic overtures as a distraction to mask his intentions. By allowing Starmer to project an image of de-escalation, Trump created a false narrative that kept Iran and the international community off balance until the B-2 bombers struck. This operation not only exposed Starmer’s weakness as a leader unable to sway U.S. policy but also revealed Trump’s willingness to sideline even a supposed ally to achieve his objectives.

 

Starmer’s reactive and cautious response, coupled with his exclusion from U.S. and Israeli decision-making, has damaged his credibility on the world stage. Posts on X reflect a public perception of Starmer as outmanoeuvred and irrelevant, with some even suggesting he was complicit in Trump’s deception, whether knowingly or not. Meanwhile, Trump’s disregard for Starmer—evident in his failure to consult or inform the U.K. leader—underscores a broader truth: in the high-stakes game of international power, Starmer is a lightweight, easily used and quickly discarded. As the Middle East teeters on the edge of further escalation, Starmer’s challenge will be to regain relevance in a world where Trump’s bold actions set the agenda.

The Betrayal of Britain: Starmer and Hermer’s Spineless Retreat from Duty

 

As the clock strikes 12:05 PM BST on June 23, 2025, the United Kingdom finds itself led by two figures—Sir Keir Starmer and his very close friend Attorney General, Richard Hermer—who appear determined to erode the nation’s credibility and abandon its allies at the most critical juncture. The latest scandal involves their deafening silence on the potential U.S. bombing of Iran and their refusal to affirm whether Britain, as a NATO ally, would stand by America if Iran retaliates. Hiding behind a flimsy legal interpretation that NATO obligations don’t compel military assistance, Starmer and Hermer are not just dodging responsibility—they are actively weakening the UK’s global standing and betraying the British people.

Dodging the Bullet: A Spineless Stance on NATO

The breaking news from Joe Rich (@joerichlaw) on X this morning—reporting Hermer’s assertion that Britain’s NATO treaty obligations do not mandate military support for the U.S. if attacked by Iran—has sparked outrage. This claim hinges on Article 5’s ambiguous phrasing, which allows members to determine what “necessary” assistance entails. Yet, this legalistic wriggling ignores the spirit of NATO, forged in the fires of the Cold War and solidified by the unanimous support for the U.S. after 9/11. Hermer’s position suggests a calculated retreat, one that Starmer seems all too willing to endorse by his conspicuous silence.

 

Why the hesitation? Are they afraid of upsetting Iran’s regime, or are they pandering to a domestic base wary of foreign entanglements? The refusal to commit to supporting the U.S.—a nation that hosts critical UK military bases like Diego Garcia—sends a chilling message to allies: Britain can no longer be relied upon. This isn’t statesmanship; it’s cowardice dressed up as legal nuance, and it risks painting the UK as a fair-weather friend on the global stage.

A Pattern of Weakness: From Chagos to Veterans

This evasiveness is no isolated incident. Starmer and Hermer have built a track record of actions that undermine British interests and sovereignty. Take the Chagos Islands surrender, finalised in May 2025, which The Telegraph reports could cost the UK up to £30 billion. This deal, brokered by Starmer, hands over a strategically vital Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius, jeopardising the joint UK-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia. 

 

Critics, including campaigners like Bertrice Pompe, argue it breaches human rights, yet Starmer pressed ahead, allegedly to avoid a legal challenge. Is this leadership, or a craven capitulation to international pressure?

 

Then there’s the assault on free expression. As ARTICLE 19 warned in June 2024, the UK government has seen a decade-long decline in free speech protections, a trend accelerated under Labour. Hermer’s legal manoeuvres have supported proposals like the Criminal Justice Bill’s restrictions on protest anonymity, while hate speech laws have been weaponised against dissenters. This isn’t defending democracy—it’s lawfare to silence it.

 

Most egregious is the persecution of British veterans. Labour’s push to scrap the Legacy Act, which shielded Northern Ireland Troubles veterans from endless legal battles, has sparked a “mutiny” within the armed forces, per the Daily Mail (May 14, 2025). Regiments like The Rifles have publicly condemned these reforms, with veterans calling it a “total betrayal.” Hermer’s legal framework enables this, turning the law into a tool to harass those who served rather than protect them.

Whose Interests Are They Serving?

The question looms large: why are Starmer and Hermer so assiduously working against the British people? Their progressive agenda, influenced by groups like the Labour Foreign Policy Group, seems to prioritise globalist ideals over national security. Hermer’s RUSI lecture (Spectator, June 3, 2025) comparing ECHR withdrawal advocates to Nazis reveals a mindset hostile to British sovereignty, while Starmer’s Chagos deal suggests a willingness to trade strategic assets for political expediency.

 

Could it be personal ambition? Starmer’s forensic image takes a hit with every dodge, yet he clings to Hermer, a man X users like @CathyMo41926708 and @FedUpNowGo call “evil” and “dangerous.” 

 

Or is it ideological? Their actions align with a vision of a diminished UK, less reliant on the U.S. and more subservient to international bodies—a vision that sacrifices the military, free speech, and national pride on the altar of progressive virtue.

A Call to Account

The British public deserves answers. Why does Starmer tolerate Hermer’s anti-Western folly? Why surrender Chagos for £30 billion when the strategic cost is incalculable? Why prosecute veterans while shielding your own political flanks? And why, when Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities threaten global stability (Daily Mail, June 18, 2025), do you cower behind legal technicalities instead of standing with NATO?

 

This duo’s leadership is a disgrace. Their legalistic evasions weaken the UK’s reputation, alienate allies, and erode the trust of their own people. It’s time for Starmer to sack Hermer and for both to face the electorate’s judgement. Anything less is a betrayal of the nation they swore to serve.

Starmer’s Chagos Betrayal: A Strategic Surrender Endangering Global Security

 

In a move that reeks of diplomatic naivety and strategic cowardice, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has overseen a deal that hands over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, leasing back the critical Diego Garcia military base at an astronomical cost to British taxpayers. This agreement, signed on May 22, 2025, not only undermines Britain’s global standing but also raises serious questions about Starmer’s judgement, particularly regarding the use of U.S. military assets stationed at Diego Garcia and their potential role in addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Worse still, it remains unclear whether Starmer has fulfilled his treaty obligations to inform Mauritius of any planned U.S. military actions from the base, a requirement that could compromise operational security in a volatile region. This article dismantles Starmer’s reckless decision, exposing its flaws and highlighting the military implications of this so-called “deal.”

The Chagos Deal: A Financial and Strategic Fiasco

Starmer’s agreement to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, while leasing back Diego Garcia for 99 years at a cost of £101 million annually (potentially totalling £30 billion over the lease period), is nothing short of a financial and strategic disaster. The deal, ostensibly struck to comply with a 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, was framed by Starmer as a necessary step to secure the Diego Garcia base from legal challenges. Yet, this narrative crumbles under scrutiny. The ICJ’s opinion was non-binding, and Britain could have continued to assert its sovereignty while negotiating from a position of strength. Instead, Starmer’s government capitulated, agreeing to pay Mauritius exorbitant sums—£165 million annually for the first three years, £120 million for the next decade, and inflation-adjusted payments thereafter—while Mauritius uses the windfall to fund tax cuts and debt repayments for its citizens.

 

This financial burden on British taxpayers is egregious enough, but the strategic implications are far graver. Diego Garcia, a joint UK-U.S. military base, is a linchpin of Western power projection in the Indian Ocean, located just 5,300 kilometres from Iran. Its strategic value lies in its ability to host heavy bombers and support operations across the Middle East, free from the constraints of Gulf airspace. Under the deal, the UK retains operational control of Diego Garcia, but Mauritius’s sovereignty introduces new vulnerabilities, including the requirement to notify Mauritius of any military actions launched from the base. This clause, buried in the treaty’s fine print, could jeopardise the secrecy and efficacy of military operations, particularly in a potential conflict with Iran.

U.S. Military Assets at Diego Garcia: A Critical Arsenal

Diego Garcia is not just a speck in the Indian Ocean; it is a fortress of military might. The base hosts a range of U.S. aircraft critical to regional and global security. Recent reports confirm the presence of four B-52 Stratofortress bombers, capable of carrying precision-guided bombs and cruise missiles, spotted on Diego Garcia’s runway on June 16, 2025. Additionally, speculation surrounds the potential deployment of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, which can carry bunker-busting munitions like the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to target deeply buried facilities such as Iran’s Fordo nuclear enrichment plant. These assets underscore Diego Garcia’s role as a staging ground for potential U.S. or joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a prospect that has grown more likely amid escalating tensions following Israel’s attacks on Iran in late May 2025.

 

The base’s strategic importance cannot be overstated. Its isolation allows for secure operations, and its proximity to the Middle East enables rapid response capabilities. Yet, Starmer’s deal introduces a dangerous wildcard: Mauritius, a nation with growing ties to China, Russia, and Iran, now has a say in the base’s operations. The requirement to notify Mauritius of any military actions, such as U.S. bomber strikes, risks leaking sensitive information to adversarial powers, potentially undermining the element of surprise critical to such missions.

Has Starmer Informed Mauritius? A Glaring Silence

The treaty’s notification clause is not a minor bureaucratic detail—it’s a potential operational disaster. As tensions with Iran escalate, with Donald Trump reportedly considering strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, the question looms: has Starmer informed Mauritius of any U.S. intentions to use Diego Garcia for such operations? Posts on X have raised this concern, with users like @joerichlaw and @RossKempsell questioning whether Starmer and his National Security Advisor, Jonathan Powell, have complied with the treaty’s terms. Starmer’s government has remained conspicuously silent on this matter, offering no public confirmation of whether Mauritius has been notified of recent U.S. bomber deployments or potential plans for strikes on Iran.

 

This silence is damning. If Starmer has informed Mauritius, he may have already compromised operational security, given Mauritius’s diplomatic ties to powers hostile to Western interests. If he has not, he is in breach of his own treaty, undermining the deal’s legitimacy and exposing the UK to legal and diplomatic repercussions. Either way, Starmer’s handling of this issue betrays a lack of foresight and a failure to prioritise national security. The presence of B-52s and potential B-2s at Diego Garcia, combined with the treaty’s notification requirement, places Starmer in an impossible position—one entirely of his own making.

The Chagossian Betrayal: A Moral Failure

Beyond the strategic and financial costs, Starmer’s deal tramples on the rights of the Chagossian people, who were forcibly displaced from Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the military base. UN human rights experts have condemned the agreement for failing to consult Chagossians and for barring their return to Diego Garcia, violating their cultural and ancestral rights. The deal’s provision for a £40 million trust fund and potential resettlement on outer islands does little to address the Chagossians’ grievances, especially when Mauritius, not the UK, controls the terms of any return. Starmer’s claim that the deal was necessary to avoid legal challenges rings hollow when weighed against this moral failing, further tarnishing his legacy.

A Surrender to Adversaries

Starmer’s defenders argue that the deal secures Diego Garcia’s future by aligning with international law and U.S. support. Yet, this ignores the broader geopolitical context. Mauritius’s growing alignment with China, Russia, and Iran raises legitimate concerns that the deal could expose Diego Garcia to “malign influence,” precisely what Starmer claimed to guard against. Critics, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK’s Nigel Farage, have slammed the deal as a “surrender” that weakens Britain’s strategic position and emboldens adversaries. The suggestion that China might establish bases on outer Chagos islands, unhindered by the UK’s diminished sovereignty, is a chilling possibility that Starmer’s government seems ill-prepared to counter.

Conclusion: A Leader Out of His Depth

Keir Starmer’s Chagos deal is a masterclass in shortsightedness, trading Britain’s strategic leverage for a costly lease and a dubious promise of stability. The presence of U.S. B-52 and potentially B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia underscores the base’s critical role in countering threats like Iran’s nuclear program, yet Starmer’s treaty risks compromising these operations through its notification clause. His failure to clarify whether Mauritius has been informed of U.S. intentions only deepens the suspicion that he is either negligent or deliberately opaque.

 

Coupled with the deal’s financial extravagance and disregard for Chagossian rights, Starmer’s actions reveal a leader out of his depth, prioritising appeasement over strength. Britain deserves better than this capitulation, and the world cannot afford the consequences of such weakness.

Starmer’s Far Right Dog Whistle U-Turn on the Rape Gang Inquiry

 

In a move that reeks of political cowardice and self-preservation, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has executed a brazen U-turn on a national inquiry into the UK’s grooming gang scandal. This long-overdue investigation, which Starmer once dismissed as a “far-right bandwagon,” now has his reluctant blessing—though not without strings attached. The Labour leader’s volte-face, forced by public pressure and mounting outrage, exposes a party rotten with hypocrisy, terrified of the truth, and desperate to shield its own complicity.

 

Just months ago, in January 2025, Starmer and his Labour MPs stood united in their contempt for justice, voting 364 to 111 against a national inquiry into the systematic rape and trafficking of thousands of young, mostly working-class girls by organised gangs. The victims, preyed upon in towns like Rotherham, Telford, and Rochdale, were dismissed as collateral damage in Labour’s quest to protect its political image. Starmer himself sneered at calls for accountability, branding advocates—including survivors and their families—as far-right extremists jumping on a populist cause. This wasn’t just a misjudgment; it was a deliberate smear to silence those demanding answers.

 

Now, with the tide of public anger swelling and figures like Elon Musk amplifying the issue, Starmer has been dragged kicking and screaming into supporting the inquiry. But don’t be fooled by his newfound moral posturing. The Labour leader’s sudden conversion is less about justice and more about damage control. The establishment, of which Labour is a core pillar, is petrified of what a full inquiry might uncover: decades of institutional failure, political cover-ups, and a culture of turning a blind eye to protect community cohesion—or, more cynically, Labour’s voter base.

 

The hypocrisy doesn’t end with Starmer. Labour bigwigs like Sadiq Khan and Jess Phillips, who have long postured as champions of justice, are now conveniently silent or worse, rewriting history. Phillips, for instance, recently claimed Labour “will not hesitate” to pursue local inquiries, despite having voted against a national one earlier this year. Other MPs, like Keighley’s John Grogan, representing towns scarred by these atrocities, also toed the party line and voted against the inquiry, only to now feign support as the political winds shift. These are not principled leaders but opportunistic chameleons, scrambling to save face while their party’s moral bankruptcy is laid bare.

 

The establishment’s fear is palpable. A national inquiry, if truly independent, could expose not just local council failures but the complicity of national figures—potentially including Labour luminaries—who ignored or downplayed the scandal for years. Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, knows better than most how deep the rot goes. His tenure saw countless cases mishandled, with victims’ cries ignored in favour of bureaucratic inertia. Now, as Prime Minister, he’s manoeuvring to limit the inquiry’s scope and delay its start, ensuring it remains a toothless exercise that protects Labour’s reputation. Reports suggest the government is already pivoting toward “more than five” local inquiries—a classic tactic to fragment the truth and bury systemic failures under a patchwork of half-measures.

 

Starmer’s defenders might argue he’s acting pragmatically, balancing justice with political realities. But this is no time for pragmatism—it’s time for courage. The victims, some as young as 11, endured unspeakable horrors while authorities, often under Labour-controlled councils, looked the other way. To now delay or dilute the inquiry is to spit in their faces. Starmer’s claim that it’s “the right thing to do” rings hollow when his party spent years obstructing it, only relenting under pressure from the very “far-right” voices he vilified.

 

The Labour Party’s U-turn is not a victory for justice but a desperate bid to cling to power. Starmer, Khan, Phillips, and their ilk have shown their true colours: they’ll back an inquiry only when the cost of resistance outweighs the cost of exposure. Even now, they’re plotting to neuter it, hoping to shield their party from the fallout. But the truth has a way of breaking free. The victims deserve better than Labour’s cynical games—they deserve an unsparing, national reckoning. Anything less is a betrayal, and Starmer’s legacy will be forever stained by it.

Word count: 614