The cloying praise showered on Keir Starmer by Labour MPs as he exited No 10 this week was almost enough to convince you that they’d got rid of him for being too popular, Peter Hitchens has joked.
Speaking on the latest episode of the Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast, the longstanding Mail on Sunday columnist pointed to the number of figures in the Commons lauding the departing PM’s wisdom and achievements – fresh from stabbing him in the back politically.
Tributes came from seemingly all quarters, including Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who called on Keir Starmer to resign in February over the Mandelson scandal.
Sarwar, who has been offered a seat in the House of Lords in order to feature in Burnham’s Cabinet, spoke of the ex-PM’s ‘integrity’ and ‘determination’ and his glowing ‘legacy’.
Meanwhile newly-appointed Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, a close Burnham ally who resigned as a minister in May after declaring she had lost confidence in Starmer, praised Sir Keir for ‘bringing Labour back into Government and putting public service back at the heart of national life.’
As well as mocking the hypocrisy of Labour MPs, Hitchens also took a shot at the new Prime Minister for acting like he had no involvement in his predescessor’s overthrow.
‘As far as one could discover from the House of Commons last week, Keir Starmer was got rid of because he was so wonderful and because everybody loved him,’ he joked.
‘And this is quite strange. And Burnham had absolutely nothing to do with removing him, and has just inherited the post completely by accident, which is again fascinating.’
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (left, pictured with new Prime Minister Andy Burnham in 2022) was among those praising a departing Keir Stamer – despite calling for the former PM to resign in February over the Mandelson scandal
Hitchens joked that the process by which the MP for Makerfield became Prime Minister was ‘even more obscure than the process by which people become leader of North Korea‘.
‘You know that the person who wins has to be called Kim, but there was no such certainty in this,’ he added.
Hitchen’s co-host Sarah VIne also took issue with the way Burnham was catapulted into No10 on the back of his majority in Makerfield.
‘I think the way that he has achieved power is, I wouldn’t say dishonest, but just a bit disingenuous,’ she said.
‘You know, a person stepped aside so that he could stand in a in a constituency. He was then elected.
‘He’s then been crowned the leader of the of the Labour Party, which means that he’s there, really, on the say so of, what, 17,000 people?
‘I think if he’s got any decency, that might eat away at him a little bit.’
Vine also flexed her conspiratorial side as she questioned whether Starmer had just been brought in as a Trojan horse for the more left-wing Burnham.
Alas Vine & Hitchens: What’s the big idea? Listen to the Mail’s politics podcast, hosted by top columnists Sarah Vine and Peter Hitchens, wherever you listen to podcasts
‘I actually think that this whole thing could have been planned. I think that because there’s obviously there’s no obvious reason behind it,’ she said.
‘Starmer made a lot of mistakes and he had the terrible Peter Mandelson affair, but none of those things really are quite enough.
‘I mean, none of the things that he did were really, really terrible, and yet he’s gone. So it’s like, well, hang on a second.
‘It seems to me that at some point, someone must have explained to Starmer that actually his job was not to be Prime Minister, but in fact his job was to prepare the ground for the coming of the great King of the North.’
The duo also dismissed Andy Burnham‘s desire for a return to a life before Thatcherism, with Vine branding Britain’s new PM ‘naive’.
In his first speech after becoming Labour leader, Burnham signalled a lurch to the Left, resolving to underdo the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
Burnham said: ‘I am clear: Britain took a series of wrong-turns in the 1980s. Political power was centralised and economic power was privatised.
‘The country surrendered control of the essentials – housing, water, energy, transport – and left people exposed to higher costs.
Andy Burnham was greeted by an adoring crowd of aides and supporters outside No10 as he was sworn in as PM on Monday
‘That, in turn, led to the concentration of more wealth and power in the hands of fewer people and fewer places.’
He added: ‘If we want an economy and a country that works for all people and places – which to me should always be at the very core of Labourism – then it requires a new path to the one we’ve been on for the last 40 years.’
However, speaking on the podcast, Vine mocked Burnham’s claims, calling them a ‘rhetorical fantasy’.
‘Is this not just a sort of rhetorical fantasy? And and you know, isn’t it a bit worrying that this is what he’s he’s doing?’ she asked.
Her co-host Peter Hitchens was slightly more forgiving, arguing that while it was unachieveable, he understood the desire to hark back to the 1970s.
‘You can see why why people might want to might want to do that, because for many people that was a time of full employment before deindustrialization and before many of the of the chaotic things which have invaded our lives took place,’ Hitchens said.
‘I’m a Conservative, and I look back on the Thatcher era with dismay.’






You must be logged in to post a comment Login