Lord Ashcroft’s unauthorised biography of Keir Starmer is as dry as the Labour leader

In the edition of the Leeds Student, published on January 27, 1984, there appeared a small item in the “Personals” section which read: “Keir Starmer – King of the Middle Class Radicals.” It is the only reference to the Labour leader that Michael (Lord) Ashcroft found in the newspaper during his extensive research for Red Knight, his unauthorised biography of Sir Keir Starmer.

No doubt the former deputy chair of the Conservative Party was hoping for a few juicier examples of indiscreet behaviour by the future Director of Public Prosecution and Labour leader. That he failed to find them leads Ashcroft and his readers to two conclusions: that Starmer was indeed a bit of a bore, even as a student; and that as a young man, “this former Surrey grammar school boy has been fending off accusations of being more bourgeois than he would care to admit.” Perhaps Ashcroft hopes that revealing that Rodney Starmer was in fact the owner of his own business (contrary to repeated claims by Starmer that his father was a jobbing toolmaker), or that the school the teenage Starmer attended started charging fees while he was still there (although he was exempt from paying) will cause readers to form a pejorative judgment of his subject.

But throughout the narrative of the early part of Starmer’s life, he comes across as caring, considerate and hard-working, particularly in the care of his invalid mother, who was confined to a wheelchair for much of her life. Ashcroft occasionally uses very circumstantial evidence (or none at all) to reach uncertain conclusions. Having interviewed some of Starmer’s contemporaries at Leeds University, he draws a blank, with most of them unable to recollect him. Immediately after this, the author writes the bizarre non sequitur: “[It] is as if Starmer saw things in black-and-white terms, simply believing there were no enemies on the Left.” This is a conclusion that is reached before the evidence is either examined or even produced. This is a conclusion that is reached before the evidence is either examined or even produced.

Ashcroft is on firmer ground when he recounts Starmer’s period as a postgraduate at Oxford, and the development of his political views at that time. (It is perhaps ironic, not to say charming, in the light of subsequent events in the Labour Party that his favourite song while at Oxford was “The Israelites” by Desmond Dekker.) He became a contributor to Socialist Endeavour, one of the many Marxist journals that did the rounds in the 1980s, making his debut with an argument supporting the expansion of trade unions “in light of the Wapping dispute – the print workers’ strike held between January 1986 and February 1987”.

From this point onwards, in fact, Starmer became increasingly political, lending his legal expertise to a number of trade union causes. A subsequent article for Socialist Alternative saw Starmer criticise the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock for his pro-capitalist approach, adding: “Unfortunately, by turning back to a pro-market economy, [Kinnock’s policy platform] misses a third alternative, that of participatory socialism based on democratic planning.” If Ashcroft believes this revelation might further damage Starmer’s reputation as a moderate, he should perhaps consider Tony Blair’s election address in 1983 calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC.

It is Ashcroft’s recounting of the 2017 parliament, rather than ancient history, that is most likely to dredge up unhelpful reminders of Starmer’s political cynicism. He stands accused of obstructing the then Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, in his attempts to come to an agreement with Theresa May over her Brexit deal, and so allow Labour to put the whole issue behind it. Starmer, having initially insisted that the result of the 2016 referendum be honoured, ended up as the hero of the Remain-supporting activists by committing to a second referendum with Remain as an option. In these final chapters, the responsibility for the failure of Labour’s Brexit policy – and its consequent defeat at the 2019 general election – is placed firmly on Starmer’s shoulders.

Red Knight, Ashcroft informs us, was written without Starmer’s blessing. In fact, the Labour leader is reported not to have been “comfortable” with Ashcroft’s proposal to write it, and apparently urged friends not to co-operate with the author. This plays into Ashcroft’s central premise that Starmer is keen not to reveal too much about himself to the public, perhaps for fear that they will judge him on his record – or worse – his social background. Such fears are probably ill-founded. Despite Ashcroft’s bias, Starmer comes across as no more and no less cynical and manipulative than any of his contemporaries.

Large sections of the book present the image of a man who is in many ways admirable. That Starmer did not even become an MP until the age of 52 suggests that the accusation of “careerist” is unlikely to stick. The book’s most entertaining revelation is perhaps that he admitted, in a 2015 interview, that he had no evidence to support the claim that he was named after Labour Party founder, Keir Hardie, because he had never discussed it with his parents.#

Red Knight: The Unauthorised Biography of Sir Keir Starmer by Michael Ashcroft (Biteback, ￡20) is out 19 August