The Sun’s reporting on Sir Keir Starmer’s legal activities is strident and therefore curious. The paper reports, in thunderous terms, on a number of convicted murderers in Commonwealth countries whom Starmer saved from the noose. It notes that, as these cases took place abroad, the former barrister was not bound by the cab rank rule to take on any case for which he was competent and available, without reference to the client or crime. The implication is that Starmer was a do-good lefty lawyer so keen to keep sadistic killers from their appointment with the gallows that he flew all over to do so.
The paper’s angle is all the more intriguing when you consider that the Sun opposes the return of capital punishment in the UK. So it can hardly be objecting to the Labour leader having fought the death penalty in court overseas. (Also, some of this work included arguing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is a British court.) The point might be that Starmer’s priorities are not those of ordinary Britons, or that he is soft on crime, or that in representing men convicted of terrible crimes he displayed poor judgement.
None of these rationales stack up. The priorities of a practising KC are often at odds with those of the man in the street because criminals are seldom terribly popular. Starmer may or may not be soft on crime but, again, a lawyer’s job is to represent his client, not reflect public opinion. And if a barrister shows poor judgment by choosing to represent foreign murderers, then the same must be true of a specialist surgeon who flies overseas to operate on murderers, militants or autocrats.
The next general election will mark a profound shift in British politics. It will be the first in almost half a century in which the Labour party will not have to worry about what the Sun writes about it. The red-top was launched in 1964, if you can believe it, as a worthy broadsheet for middle-class idealists and supported Labour, even after Rupert Murdoch acquired it in 1969. Although it endorsed the Tories in February 1974, it did so in a pained more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger fashion, before backing Margaret Thatcher five years later in hopes of arresting Britain’s economic decline.
It was at this point, and especially after Kelvin Mackenzie replaced Larry Lamb as editor in 1981, that the paper became a serious problem for Labour. Mackenzie panzered Labour with a relentless barrage directed at Michael Foot and later Neil Kinnock, as well as ‘loony left’ Labour-run councils. The extent to which the Sun influenced the outcome of elections in the 1980s and 1990s was overstated – by the paper, the targets of its wrath, and critics of the tabloid press. However vindictive and scurrilous the Sun’s coverage was, and it was often outrageously so, Mackenzie did nothing more than set the mood music. Time and again, when called upon to make its case to the electorate, it was Labour wot lost it.
Times have changed considerably. Starmer’s Labour has nothing to fear from The Currant Bun, which, sad to say, is a much staler delicacy these days. In 1992, the Sun shifted 3,554,833 copies a day. In March 2020, the paper’s print circulation stood at 1,210,915. We have no more recent data because the Sun, alongside a number of other national titles, has stopped disclosing its circulation figures. What we do know is that it is no longer the biggest-selling newspaper in Britain, having ceded that title to the Daily Mail just over three years ago. (Full disclosure: I write a weekly column for the Scottish Daily Mail.)
Why isn’t Murdoch trying to butter up Keir Starmer?
The Sun’s critics are overwhelmingly progressives and because progressives live and breathe politics they assume everyone else does. They are convinced the Sun is going after Starmer’s legal background out of partisan allegiance to the Tories or to prevent the election of a centre-left Labour government. But that is not how Murdoch operates. The Sun likes to be seen as leading public opinion, and so it follows public opinion then takes credit for it. That’s why the Sun switched from the Tories to Tony Blair ahead of the 1997 election and from Labour to David Cameron before 2010. It’s not about party politics or even ideology so much as prestige, relevance and bragging rights, for the illusion of influence is what gives Murdoch access. All rich men think they know how countries ought to be run and access allows them to harangue prime ministers and presidents with their ideas every so often.
Which begs the question: why isn’t Murdoch trying to butter up Keir Starmer? After all, it would be in his interests to do so. The kinds of concerns the Sun would have about a Starmer premiership (press regulation, realigning with Brussels, criminal justice) would all be better addressed by backing Labour and trying to exert influence over its policy direction. The paper’s relentless hostility makes no sense when the Conservatives haven’t led in a single opinion poll since December 2021. Murdoch always backs the winner – unless, of course, he doesn’t believe Starmer is a winner. That is a much more compelling explanation for the Sun’s coverage than ideology or partisanship.
It’s not obvious on what basis Murdoch would come to such a conclusion, other than gut instinct. The men who are most successful in his field tend to be students not only of markets but of human psychology, including those instincts and prejudices that motivate behaviour but aren’t always picked up by polling and other quantitative research. Might Murdoch figure that the public is fed up with the Tories but not yet sold on Starmer? That perhaps they see him as another liberal London lawyer out of step with Britain north of the M25? That maybe they will pull back from voting for him at the last minute, if not enough to keep the Tories in then by enough to deny Labour a majority?
That’s pure speculation on my part. I’m not party to the man’s thinking but it is intriguing that he has not yet thrown his flagship newspaper behind a Labour leader so far ahead in the polls, particularly one who presents himself – honestly or not – as a tough-minded, patriotic moderate. Perhaps the Sun has lost touch with popular attitudes. Or perhaps they see something the rest of us haven’t yet caught onto. I think it’s much more likely to be the former, but we will find out on election night whether Murdoch has lost his touch – or was more in touch than any of us realised.
Comments