The lamentable legacy that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are bequeathing to Britain...

Published: 20:15, 16 July 2026 | Updated: 20:15, 16 July 2026 EVEN by a politician's standards, Keir Starmer seems particularly exercised about his place in the history books. But as he steps down from the helm of the Labour Party today and prepares to hand over the keys to No 10 next Monday, the unvarnished truth is that he leaves behind a largely lamentable legacy. No one can take away the fact that he has shown real leadership on Ukraine and took a principled stand against the Putin regime. Yet in virtually every other area, Starmer has been found lacking. With rank irresponsibility, he nurtured a Benefits Street culture that has ballooned in just two years. His neglect of our defences is a betrayal of everyone who has ever pulled on a Services uniform. Meanwhile, the Channel boats keep coming and – due to Sir Keir’s refusal to observe the demands of realpolitik at the start of the Iran war – relations with the United States have soured. The list of failures goes on. By some margin, the perilous state of the nation’s finances is the biggest burden bequeathed by Sir Keir and the hapless Rachel Reeves. The crippling effects of increases in employers’ National Insurance contributions and the youth minimum wage have been well documented. The perilous state of the nation’s finances is the biggest burden bequeathed by Sir Keir Starmer and the hapless Rachel Reeves Newly released figures point to a ‘fragile’ economy gripped by stagflation. Little wonder that experts are warning of Britain heading rapidly towards a debt crisis. With Sir Keir about to pass on the baton of power to a socialist with limited experience of governing, it is even less surprising that the majority of voters are demanding a snap general election. That way, our new Prime Minister would be forced to set out his stall – and let the people decide. IT hardly needs spelling out that Argentina’s football team did themselves no favours with their Falklands stunt after Wednesday’s semi-final. The puerile display of triumphalism on the pitch was only the latest example of inappropriate behaviour among their players. In previous post-match recordings, some squad members were filmed singing about the ‘Malvinas’ in an apparent taunt to England. Yet given the recent political mood music, it would be a mistake to dismiss these incidents as little more than ill-judged boorishness. Javier Milei, the country’s authoritarian president and a close ally of Donald Trump, insisted earlier this year that the islands ‘were, are and always will be Argentine’. His comments came after a leaked Pentagon memo suggested that the US was reviewing its position on Britain’s claim of sovereignty on the Falklands. Other Argentine government figures referred to England as ‘invaders’ and ‘foreign usurpers’ earlier this week. Despite 99.8 per cent of Falklanders voting in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory little more than a decade ago, the possibility of Buenos Aires attempting to seize the islands – just as it did in 1982 – cannot be ruled out. The prospect of another conflict in the South Atlantic is a disquieting one, especially given the vastly depleted status of the Royal Navy’s fighting power. That alone should be a lesson in the importance of long-term defence investment. For now, it is heartening that Starmer’s No 10 has called for a FIFA investigation into Argentina’s on-pitch antics. But we are none the wiser as to what Andy Burnham makes of it all – because just as he has been observing a vow of silence about his Downing Street plans, he has kept his thoughts on this vital issue to himself so far.