Keir Starmer's claim that Labour is patriotic is oxymoron of the century - and here's why

With a nerve so breathtaking that it is hardly possible to believe it, Keir Starmer wrote in a national news-paper that Labour is now the party of patriotism. Flabbergasted by the premise, I set about looking at his evidence and wondered that a trained lawyer could produce such arrant nonsense.

Apparently the rest of us are unpatriotic because we criticise some of our “proudest national institutions such as the BBC and the National Trust”. Er... would that be the same BBC that tried to ban Rule, Britannia! from The Last Night Of The Proms?

The same BBC that claimed Britain had the worst Covid death rate by looking at raw numbers and simply comparing them with countries with only a tenth of our population? The same BBC which hardly bothered to disguise its opposition to Brexit? Proud national institution? Yes, once... long, long ago.

As for the National Trust, where is the patriotism in besmirching the great figures of history and their houses for often tenuous connections to slavery?

Where is the respect for freedom of speech in trying to force its workers and volunteers to wear emblems of causes to which they object?

Yet in the world of Keir Starmer, even “shouting woke” means an absence of freedom of speech, instead of anguished attempts to protect it. The cancel culture is a product of woke, not of anti-woke, and the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition is too out of touch to realise it.

There is nothing patriotic about destroying the major freedom for which Britain has been rightly renowned: freedom of speech.

Nor is there anything patriotic about resisting a democratic decision made by the British people but Starmer leads a party that called for a second referendum because it did not like the result of the first one.

Then there is the little matter of the unions that fund Labour. What is patriotic about strikes which damage the economy, industry and the NHS?

Labour patriotic? That has to be the oxymoron of the century. You might as well claim that the Conservatives are competent or that the Greens are economically literate.

Brave move to say no to euthanasia

I have an enormous respect for Jonathan Dimbleby, who had an exploratory rather than merely confrontational interview style and whose books combine facts with readability in a truly masterful way.

I also like him as an individual and am very sorry for his brother’s lingering death but he is utterly wrong to label opponents of assisted dying as “cowards”.

Not only does that sort of polemical language do an injustice to a massively serious debate but the statement is also the opposite of the truth: many opponents are deeply brave. They too have watched loved ones die (my own brother had a protracted death from cancer) or sometimes know that they could face terrible ends themselves but still in the interests of protecting the vulnerable, the mentally ill and the confused elderly resist a change in the law.

If you ask a room full of people how many would like to be able to shorten a long and painful death, the large majority will raise their hands (I would) but ask the same audience how many want the law changed to allow it and fewer hands go up. Cowardice? Or altruism?

Even the most cursory examination of the way things have gone in other countries shows the danger of the runaway bus. Dig deeper and alarming is an under-statement. It is not cowardice to recognise the danger. Just plain responsible. And that is why so far neither Commons nor Lords has been persuaded.

The Rayner affair proves Starmer is the leader of indecision

I do not know whether Angela Rayner is innocent or guilty but as there is now a proper police investigation, I am happy to wait to find out.

What I cannot understand is why Keir Starmer, a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, has so resolutely refused to look at the tax advice she received. Does he believe she has a right to absolute privacy? If so will he guarantee that none of his Shadow Cabinet will ever again call upon a political opponent to publish his or her tax affairs?

Does he fear being compromised if the advice is not as she states? Surely he would be better knowing now rather than waiting till he is at the gates of a general election?

Whatever the reason, to have let this affair drag on for so long is an indication of what we may expect should he ever become prime minister: indecision, procrastination and waffle.

Let’s cheque out speedily

Apparently complaints of debanking have increased by 44 per cent since Nigel Farage went public with his own experiences with Coutts and NatWest.

Once again he has led the way but let us hope this practice is squashed more speedily than Brexit was won!

■ Isla Bryson is a rapist. Twice over. This nasty person is also trans and in the mad world in which we now live was initially sent to a women’s prison before a public outcry forced a reversal of that daft and dangerous policy.

Now Bryson has received an apology from a prison governor after complaining of misgendering and claiming that not being allowed to wear make-up is a hate crime.

With softies like that running His Majesty’s Prisons, no wonder the criminal laughs at the law.

I am afraid that in the world of Widdecombe, any rapist would have to serve his sentence as the man he was when the crime was committed, in a men’s prison, wearing male clothes, sporting a male haircut and with not a make- up bag in sight. End of.