'Kemikaze' attack had no basis in facts - so why do it?

When Keir Starmer became Labour leader in 2020, the Conservatives viewed him as a “leftie human rights lawyer" and were confident they could turn his legal career to their advantage.

- ANDREW GRICE

Tory officials pored over Starmer's five years as director of public prosecutions (DPP) but the pickings were not as rich as they hoped.

Although Rishi Sunak branded Starmer “Sir Softy” for attending 21 meetings of the sentencing council which watered down punishments, a pre-election blitz planned by the Tories fizzled out. They sent almost 50 questions “Starmer has to answer” to Tory-supporting newspapers, but when the papers put them to Labour, his party was ready with convincing rebuttals. The attack was also undermined when I revealed a biography of Starmer would show the Tory government would have given him a second five-year term as DPP if he had wanted it.

The Tories found no evidence Starmer soft-pedalled on prosecuting the gangs who groomed and raped vulnerable girls. If they had found any, they would certainly have used it. Yet Kemi Badenoch has no such qualms.

After Elon Musk accused Starmer of being “deeply complicit in the mass rapes” while DPP, the new Tory leader called for a national inquiry into the scandal – even though the government in which she served had rejected the idea and by the election had not implemented any of the recommendations in Alexis Jay’s national inquiry into child sexual abuse.

Badenoch suggested Starmer’s refusal to hold a specific investigation into the gangs was to protect Labour figures and would fuel fears of a cover-up. Musk went further, claiming an inquiry would show Starmer was complicit. Badenoch did not need to spell it out when Musk had done so.