PETER HITCHENS: Throwing away Maggie’s portrait shows us that Starmer has always been on the far left

What a deplorable act to hide a portrait of Margaret Thatcher because one finds it “disturbing.” And yet, as reliable reports from his sympathetic biographer and friend Tom Baldwin attest, our new Prime Minister has done just that.

We don’t yet know where Sir Keir has hidden the offending picture. But even if he now puts it back in the pleasant study where it once hung (he tends to change his mind quickly if people complain enough), we now know what he thinks of it. A millionaire donor may have kitted him out with designer glasses and flattering tailored clothes. But deep down he is still the intense, stern revolutionary Marxist he was in his twenties, childishly intoning the left’s sacred motto: “Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!”

I warned you that the person who presented himself to you as the Great Prosecutor, serious, mature, changed, responsible, etc., was in reality a pure ultra-radical. The signs were all there if you cared to see them. Even if you ignored my reports of Sir Keir’s strange past activities, it was easy to spot. There were enough clues in his public plans, from constitutional changes to spiteful tax raids on private schools to the planned inquiry into the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ 40 years ago.

Orgreave – a massive clash between striking miners and the police – is still a big concern for the deep left. But not because they care about coal or miners. I think most people now think that the miners were badly treated. The Tories were shamefully ungrateful to the brave miners from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire who defied Arthur Scargill’s undemocratic strike.

I would be in favour of reopening many of the closed mines, because we will need this coal when the green madness finally runs out of steam.

But the radical left didn’t care about coal. Why else are they now all determined to end its use? They had a different goal.

The Battle of Orgreave was a furious attempt to oppose and overthrow an elected, constitutional government. Much of that anger was fuelled by a concentrated, irrational personal hatred of Margaret Thatcher, including her looks, her accent, her clothes, her moral views, her suburban, un-Marxist past. That hatred still exists in people like our Prime Minister.

Had it succeeded, the brutal violence would have overthrown the rule of law. The whole episode caused lasting damage to the country, the mining communities of the time and the police. Moreover, the methods used to defeat it were at the very limits of what a legitimate government can do. They harmed those who installed it. But a rule of law must defend itself against its enemies and cannot afford to lose to them, otherwise chaos will ensue.

It is fascinating that the left, including our prime minister, is still on the side of rebellion and chaos against law and constitution. That is why they want an investigation. That is why he threw away this portrait.

I told you all this while there was still time to prevent a Starmer government.

But many of you have made one of the most important decisions of your life based on a senseless emotional outburst. And now you see what you have done. This is a symptom of something much bigger. And more will happen before night falls.

Attentive news readers will know that the Ukraine war is currently going rather badly for President Volodymyr Zelensky. The blood-stained Russian steamroller is rumbling through the Don Basin, despite Ukraine’s adventurous push into Russia. Again, I think we need a serious discussion about this, not the usual ignorant, chauvinistic fisticuffs. And so I challenge Al “Boris” Johnson again. Discuss the Ukraine war with me.

How fair will the BBC be to Lucy Letby?

The BBC has finally acknowledged that there is a problem with the conviction of Lucy Letby, who was told 377 days ago that she would die in prison. I am told that the mighty Panorama is investigating the case, although they are boastful about not confirming this. We can only guess why it has taken them so long.

But how fair will their efforts be? When Radio 4’s World At One discussed the issue, a large section was devoted to a reporter representing the side of the police, prosecution and Court of Appeal. He labelled doubts as “misinformed comment” and “conspiracy theories”. There are people who think like that, but it is not the job of impartial BBC reporters to voice their opinions for them. Meanwhile, the astonishing revelation that the prosecution misjudged key evidence relating to the door-swiping test in the first trial remains largely unexplored. My impression is that the Court of Appeal knew nothing about this when it refused Ms Letby leave to appeal. If they did know, I don’t know who told them.

I’m working on it, but I’ve only just started.

Last week, while cycling along abandoned railway lines and country roads, I had two strange experiences. The first was being blocked in my path by three slightly terrifying old people on mobility scooters who were apparently racing each other (it was after lunch). This seemed to symbolise something about modern Britain, although I’m not sure what. Then, as I passed them, I saw a nifty red sign that read: “FAULTY ROAD SURFACE. SLOW DOWN”. In fact, the surface nearby was nowhere near as bad as the rutted, potholed roads I travel on every day on my way to and from work. As ever, the difficulty is getting someone to admit that something is wrong.

Why do we have to dig for TV gold?

After some effort, I finally managed to watch an extraordinary BBC drama from the late 1970s: An Englishman’s Castle. The beloved Kenneth More (and several other excellent actors) portray a Britain that lost the war in 1940 and, 35 years later, wants to pretend that everything is fine. The Germans remain invisible and let us mismanage in their name, gleefully denouncing each other to save our skins.

It’s incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. Why are such treasures so hard to find when they were paid for by the license fee?