Has any British Prime Minister had a more catastrophic first hundred days than Sir Keir Starmer?
The resignation of his chief of staff, Sue Gray, on his 94th day in office is only the latest in an almost unprecedented catalogue of misfortunes, almost all of them self-inflicted.
There is one precedent, of course. Liz Truss lasted only 49 days in No 10 – but she had not just won a landslide election. Even she can blame the bond markets, just as Jim Callaghan could blame the currency markets in 1976.
Sir Keir has no such excuse. He has been handed one of the largest parliamentary majorities in history. Under our “winner takes all” political system, it ought to be well-nigh impossible to make a hash of governing after being dealt such a hand.
And yet Sir Keir has contrived to do so. The series of scandals that have brought down Sue Gray and may yet do for her boss, too, were all the result of avarice, greed and insouciance.
That a former senior civil servant, entrusted not so long ago with upholding “ethics” at Downing Street, could have displayed such a sense of entitlement is remarkable. Even more astonishing, however, was the fact that until now she did not appear to be aware how her conduct under Labour would appear once it was exposed to scrutiny.
But if Sue Gray was reckless about accepting freebies, despite having demanded a bigger salary than the Prime Minister, what about the man who appointed her?
What should we think of the petulant politician who told journalists that they had no business poking their noses into the behaviour of his staff at No 10 – despite having done little else himself in his efforts to bring down Boris Johnson?
Sir Keir Scrounger, as he deserves to be known, is not only guilty of misconduct by accepting Lord Alli’s largesse and then botching the cover-up.
He has bungled almost everything he has touched in his first three months. From rewarding strikers while penalising pensioners, to alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies, our PM has squandered the trust vested in him by the great British public in record time.
No Prime Minister in modern history has lost popularity so rapidly. None has suffered the indignity of being castigated by one of his bravest and most respected MPs, Rosie Duffield, when she resigned the Labour whip within weeks of being re-elected.
In the three centuries that have elapsed since Robert Walpole created the office of Prime Minister, no incumbent has done as much damage to his country, his party and himself in so short a time.
Until the Truss débâcle, George Canning had held the highest office for the shortest time: just 119 days in 1827. But Canning was, in Andrew Gimson’s words, a “genius”, who insisted on being Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as PM and worked himself to death in short order.
Sir Keir can hardly compare his achievements to those of Canning, who had also been a brilliant Foreign Secretary. What a contrast to his and David Lammy’s lamentable mishandling of the Middle East, not to mention the inexcusable decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Not even Neville Chamberlain was as naive an appeaser of dictators as Sir Keir. By handing Hitler the Sudetenland, thereby sacrificing Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain at least brought time for rearmament. He knew that Britain was not ready for war with Germany.
Sir Keir, however, has delighted Xi Jinping by enabling China to encroach on the strategically vital US base at Diego Garcia. He has irritated America and infuriated Israel, while doing nothing to remedy British military weakness.
He has also opened a diplomatic Pandora’s box by encouraging Argentina’s claims on the Falklands and Spain’s on Gibraltar.
Whether on foreign policy, immigration or the early release of violent criminals, the former DPP suffers from tunnel vision on human rights and international law. We have had lawyers in Downing Street before – think of Asquith or Blair – but none has done such lasting harm to our national interest.
Starmer is unique, too, in his ability to spread fear and despondency rather than good cheer. A key qualification for the job is to lift our spirits to what Churchill called the “broad, sunlit uplands”. That is not the Eeyore of Downing Street’s way.
The Labour leader who claimed he needed two or three terms now looks unlikely to last for one. After Sir Keir’s inglorious Hundred Days, it is only a matter of time before he meets his Waterloo.
Other premiers – including Liz Truss and Jim Callaghan – have been unlucky. But the incumbent’s misfortunes are of his own making
Has any British Prime Minister had a more catastrophic first hundred days than Sir Keir Starmer?
The resignation of his chief of staff, Sue Gray, on his 94th day in office is only the latest in an almost unprecedented catalogue of misfortunes, almost all of them self-inflicted.
There is one precedent, of course. Liz Truss lasted only 49 days in No 10 – but she had not just won a landslide election. Even she can blame the bond markets, just as Jim Callaghan could blame the currency markets in 1976.
Sir Keir has no such excuse. He has been handed one of the largest parliamentary majorities in history. Under our “winner takes all” political system, it ought to be well-nigh impossible to make a hash of governing after being dealt such a hand.
And yet Sir Keir has contrived to do so. The series of scandals that have brought down Sue Gray and may yet do for her boss, too, were all the result of avarice, greed and insouciance.
That a former senior civil servant, entrusted not so long ago with upholding “ethics” at Downing Street, could have displayed such a sense of entitlement is remarkable. Even more astonishing, however, was the fact that until now she did not appear to be aware how her conduct under Labour would appear once it was exposed to scrutiny.
But if Sue Gray was reckless about accepting freebies, despite having demanded a bigger salary than the Prime Minister, what about the man who appointed her?
What should we think of the petulant politician who told journalists that they had no business poking their noses into the behaviour of his staff at No 10 – despite having done little else himself in his efforts to bring down Boris Johnson?
Sir Keir Scrounger, as he deserves to be known, is not only guilty of misconduct by accepting Lord Alli’s largesse and then botching the cover-up.
He has bungled almost everything he has touched in his first three months. From rewarding strikers while penalising pensioners, to alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies, our PM has squandered the trust vested in him by the great British public in record time.
No Prime Minister in modern history has lost popularity so rapidly. None has suffered the indignity of being castigated by one of his bravest and most respected MPs, Rosie Duffield, when she resigned the Labour whip within weeks of being re-elected.
In the three centuries that have elapsed since Robert Walpole created the office of Prime Minister, no incumbent has done as much damage to his country, his party and himself in so short a time.
Until the Truss débâcle, George Canning had held the highest office for the shortest time: just 119 days in 1827. But Canning was, in Andrew Gimson’s words, a “genius”, who insisted on being Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as PM and worked himself to death in short order.
Sir Keir can hardly compare his achievements to those of Canning, who had also been a brilliant Foreign Secretary. What a contrast to his and David Lammy’s lamentable mishandling of the Middle East, not to mention the inexcusable decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Not even Neville Chamberlain was as naive an appeaser of dictators as Sir Keir. By handing Hitler the Sudetenland, thereby sacrificing Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain at least brought time for rearmament. He knew that Britain was not ready for war with Germany.
Sir Keir, however, has delighted Xi Jinping by enabling China to encroach on the strategically vital US base at Diego Garcia. He has irritated America and infuriated Israel, while doing nothing to remedy British military weakness.
He has also opened a diplomatic Pandora’s box by encouraging Argentina’s claims on the Falklands and Spain’s on Gibraltar.
Whether on foreign policy, immigration or the early release of violent criminals, the former DPP suffers from tunnel vision on human rights and international law. We have had lawyers in Downing Street before – think of Asquith or Blair – but none has done such lasting harm to our national interest.
Starmer is unique, too, in his ability to spread fear and despondency rather than good cheer. A key qualification for the job is to lift our spirits to what Churchill called the “broad, sunlit uplands”. That is not the Eeyore of Downing Street’s way.
The Labour leader who claimed he needed two or three terms now looks unlikely to last for one. After Sir Keir’s inglorious Hundred Days, it is only a matter of time before he meets his Waterloo.