Sir Softy? No, the Tories judged Keir Starmer ‘a man of great integrity’

Unusually, both the Conservatives and Labour want to talk about Keir Starmer’s record as director of public prosecutions (DPP) from 2008-13.

For the Tories, it provides evidence that the “lefty lawyer” they call “Sir Softy” is soft on crime. They need all the ammunition they can muster on the issue, on which they have traditionally been ahead of Labour – but now trail Starmer’s party.

However, Labour is convinced that Starmer’s performance at the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can be turned into “a huge asset”. One close ally told me Starmer can be cast as “the UK’s Eliot Ness”. The real one led a team of incorruptible prohibition agents in Chicago called The Untouchables and was integral in bringing down the mobster Al Capone.

It might sound like overspinning, but Labour has a point. Starmer argues, for example, that his experience in prosecuting terrorists across borders will come in useful in tackling the people smugglers behind the small boats crisis. As Labour argues: “Keir Starmer was the country’s most senior prosecutor, serving under Labour and Tory governments. During this time, he oversaw the first-ever prosecution of al-Qaeda terrorists, the jailing of the airline liquid bomb plotters and racist murderers of Stephen Lawrence. With his leadership, charge and conviction rates for sexual offences rose, victims were better supported, and the CPS was positively reformed.”

Both main parties can’t be right, can they? Until today, the Tories looked as if they might gain the upper hand in what will be one of the sub-plots of this year’s election battle.

Even if Starmer could point to an impressive track record, the Tories could grab headlines the public would notice by attacking some of the failures during his tenure. Bad news usually drowns out the good. Labour is convinced, and privately worried, that the Tories (or at least newspapers which support them) will revive the controversy over the failure to prosecute the TV celebrity and paedophile Jimmy Savile.

Starmer accepts responsibility for all CPS decisions on his watch but was not informed about this ill-fated decision. Boris Johnson’s typically crude attempt to blame Starmer backfired at the time but the issue might still return to haunt the Labour leader.

However, the balance in this power struggle has shifted today. As I report, a new biography of Starmer, to be published by William Collins on 29 February, reveals that the Tories would have handed him a second five-year term as DPP. Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general at the time, told the author Tom Baldwin: “I would definitely have reappointed him, of course I would. And I don’t think anyone else in government would have had any basis for taking a contrary view.”

Grieve recalled that his cabinet colleagues were not “complaining about what an awful DPP we’ve got,” adding: “For them [the Tories] to turn around now and attempt to muckrake his time as DPP is really infantile behaviour, completely unjustified and just a load of rubbish.” (Starmer decided not to seek a second spell as DPP because he had set his sight on achieving social justice by changing the system and becoming a Labour MP).

Inevitably, the Tories will portray the estranged Grieve as on a revenge mission. He was one of 21 Tories who lost the Tory whip for opposing a “no deal” Brexit under Johnson. He stood as an independent in his true blue Beaconsfield constituency, which the Tories retained. But Grieve is a highly respected figure, hardly a “bitter Remoaner”. That Sunak’s party has lost a traditional One Nation Conservative like him – he might even cast a personal vote for Starmer at the election – tells us a lot about what the Tories have become.

Grieve’s praise for Starmer as a man of “great integrity” and “one of the most successful directors of recent years” will undoubtedly dent the Tories’ attacks on the Labour leader.

It won’t stop them, of course. Tory sources admit they will “go negative” against Starmer; they liken him to a work boss who is happy to talk about all his successes without ever taking responsibility for the company’s failures. Even some Labour insiders admit privately their party cannot have it both ways; it invited scrutiny of Starmer’s DPP record by running a controversial attack ad claiming Sunak thinks paedophiles should not be sent to prison. Although Starmer stood by it even though he didn’t approve the ad, some Labour figures now regret making a rod for their own backs.

They shouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. The Tories are in such a dire position that they were always going to throw not just the kitchen sink but the whole house at Labour, and Starmer in particular. They keep their spirits up by reminding themselves that Starmer has not yet sealed a personal deal with the voters, even if Labour’s opinion poll lead remains stubbornly at 20 points. Starmer consistently outguns Sunak as best prime minister, calling into question the presidential campaign the Tories plan.

The Tories are also combing through Starmer’s record as a human rights lawyer before he became DPP. That is bound to bear some fruit. He did represent the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, long before it was banned last month. There will be others, though Labour can point out that lawyers don’t always agree with their clients’ views.

Many political slanging matches end in a messy draw. Perhaps Starmer will not prove to be one of The Untouchables as his allies hope. But Grieve’s highly significant intervention will make it harder for the Tories to get their mud to stick.