HOW long have Keir Starmer and Sue Gray been secretly cooking up their staggeringly ill-judged new political partnership?
How long has this most senior civil servant, a Downing Street veteran trusted with top Tories’ intimate secrets, been discussing running Labour’s campaign to oust the very Government she has been working for?
Starmer is vague. We do not suggest Gray has divulged anything confidential to him.
But — since other top political figures are currently being judged on emails and WhatsApps — what would hers and his reveal? The public should be told.
Labour claim Gray’s appointment was only discussed recently, and after her Partygate probe into No10.
But Starmer admits they have known and liked each other for years — and her devotion to Labour is plainly not a recent fad.
During six years as head of Propriety and Ethics in the Cabinet Office she will have been entrusted with the darkest confidences of scores of Tories, from their finances to their personal lives.
Even the most scrupulously honourable woman would struggle to forget potentially damaging material about her new opponents as she orchestrates Starmer’s strategy to defeat them.
This scandal — and that is what it is — fuels the already deep suspicion that our elected Government, for all its failings, has also been stitched up and obstructed by a staunchly left-wing civil service itching to work for Labour.
Scurrilous leaks about “bullying” or “thick” Tory Cabinet ministers are part of the disinformation campaign.
Boris Johnson, the charismatic vote magnet Labour most feared, finds himself an ex-PM being tried by a Commons committee heavily reliant on the damning Partygate report carried out by Labour’s new chief-of-staff.
If he misled MPs (not even intentionally . . . the subjective judgment that he was “reckless” will do) he will be done for.
The Left still claims anti-Tory Whitehall bias is merely right-wing paranoia.
Gray and Starmer have blown that defence to bits.
IT’S a genuine poll result . . . but more one-sided than a North Korean election held at gunpoint.
Asked if they wanted their home to remain British, Falkland Islanders said Yes by 99.8 per cent to 0.20 per cent.
Total votes against: Three.
What else should determine the islands’ fate except what the inhabitants want?
It may play well with Argentinian voters for its government to revive its tedious claim to this historic British territory — and casually trash a pact on fishing, shipping and energy.
But it unsettles the islanders and does nothing for harmony between two nations that would otherwise be friends.
The Falklands, 300 miles from the Argie coast, have been British since 1833 and locals like it that way.
Hands off, Argentina.