Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree.
So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs.
Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages?
When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'.
So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel.
I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night.
What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him.
That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned.
By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months.
Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years.
Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.'
Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs.
There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her.
But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this.
Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want.
They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally.
Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
3 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
Ministers are seeking to create a new offence under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill already going through Parliament, to widen its scope to tackle illegal entry to the UK. The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
Powys County Times
3 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
Anyone who advertises Channel crossings or fake passports on social media could face up to five years in prison under new plans. Ministers are seeking to create a new offence under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill already going through Parliament, to widen its scope to tackle illegal entry to the UK. The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
Western Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Rachel Reeves making ‘even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss, says Kemi Badenoch
The Tory leader hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for their economic decisions as she drew a critical comparison to her predecessor at the top of the Conservative Party. 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes,' Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister (Paul Marriott/PA) Short-lived Conservative prime minister Ms Truss's mini-budget spooked the financial markets in 2022 and led to a spike in mortgage rates. 'As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets,' Mrs Badenoch added. 'Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. 'Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other.' The Chancellor earlier admitted Labour had 'disappointed' people while in Government, but said that the Government had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing. Rachel Reeves said she could not please everyone as Chancellor (Yui Mok/PA) She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular. Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk Fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed. 'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change. 'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.' Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north-east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry. The Chancellor defended Labour's windfall tax on energy companies (Andrew Milligan/PA) At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector. 'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said. Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'. 'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes. 'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it. 'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.' Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
