Starmer has six months to save his premiership, warns Labour peer
Lord Glasman, the founder of the socially conservative 'Blue Labour' movement, said that 'we are going to find out in the next six months' whether the Prime Minister 'has got it or not'.
The peer said it would be possible to reach a final verdict on Sir Keir after the summer once the premier has made decisions on a number of big issues like a potential Cabinet reshuffle and the small boats crisis.
He made the comments as Sir Keir marks his one-year anniversary in Downing Street this weekend.
The Prime Minister suffered a terrible week in Westminster after he was humiliated by Labour rebels and forced to water down his welfare reforms.
His premiership then hit a new nadir after Rachel Reeves cried during Prime Minister's Questions and Sir Keir initially failed to guarantee the Chancellor's future, spooking the markets.
Lord Glasman, viewed as an important voice within the Labour Party, told Politico's Westminster Insider podcast that there needed to be a 'very significant change' in approach by Sir Keir.
He said: 'He is grappling with the idea that being Prime Minister is actually very different from being a public prosecutor or a human rights lawyer and it is whether he can grow into that and we are going to find out I think in the next six months whether he has got it or not. I do think so.'
Asked if he was saying that in six months he would know if Sir Keir could continue as Prime Minister, he replied: 'Yeah. We can make a date in six months and talk about where we are because I think that the decisions he has got to make over the summer about the Cabinet, about the reshuffle, about the direction, about all these things, defence policy, industrial strategy, borders, what needs to be done to stop the boats, all these things that he has talked about…'
Asked if he believed Sir Keir was the right man to lead Labour into the next general election, he said: 'I don't know about the next election. I think that he is adequately placed to be the Prime Minister for the next four years.
'But in order to do that there has to be a very significant change.'
The Prime Minister led Labour back into power with more than 400 MPs at the general election on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997.
But his personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, according to professor of politics Sir John Curtice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Bowen: UK move to recognise Palestinian state is a diplomatic crowbar to revive peace process
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's announcement that Britain will recognise Palestinian statehood is a major change in UK foreign offered to postpone recognition if Israel took "substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution."Israel's immediate rejection of his statement meant that Starmer's speech writers can start work now on what he will say at the UN General Assembly in September. UK recognition of Palestine looks "irreversible," according to a senior British won't be expecting Britain's change of policy to produce an independent Palestinian state any time soon – from the perspective of many Israelis, the best time for it would be never – but the intention, diplomatic sources say, is to empower moderates on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians. The British hope they can jolt them into believing that peace might be won't be easy, not just because of the way Hamas killed around 1,200 people, including hundreds of Israeli civilians, and took hostages on 7 October 2023, followed by Israel's vengeful response that has killed tens of thousands civilians and left Gaza in is also because every attempt to make peace has failed. Years of peace talks in the 1990s ended in bloodshed. Every attempt to revive them since then has collapsed. Israel's rejection came minutes after Keir Starmer finished speaking in Downing Street. Later in the evening, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted a fiercely worded denunciation on social media."Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims. A jihadist state on Israel's border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW.""Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen."Netanyahu denies Israel has caused starvation and catastrophe in Gaza. Had he accepted Britain's conditions for a postponement, his government would have disintegrated. He depends on the support of ultra nationalist extremists who want to annex the occupied territories and force Palestinians out, not grant them Netanyahu is not their prisoner. He built a career opposing the two-state solution, the idea that peace can be built by creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Earlier this month he said a Palestinian state would be a 'launchpad' for more 7 October style attempts to destroy will be hoping for the strong backing of the US government. Its position is that recognising a Palestinian state now rewards Hamas Trump told reporters as he flew back to the US after his golfing interlude in Scotland that he didn't support Britain's issue of Palestinian sovereignty could become another factor cracking apart transatlantic the last few weeks Keir Starmer was not convinced the time was right to recognise Palestine. But pictures of Palestinian children in Gaza starving to death were the last straw after so much killing and hardened in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, as well as in the Labour party and more widely in the decision to join France in recognising Palestine is another sign of Israel's increasing diplomatic isolation. Two of its major western allies, the UK and France, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, have dismissed Israel's attempt to block their recognition of Palestine when the General Assembly meets in New York in September. In New York just after Starmer's statement, David Lammy, the UK foreign secretary, was given a big round of applause when he announced Britain's decision at the UN's conference on a two-state solution and recognition of a Palestinian dismissed the accusation that Palestinian independence could be lethal for Israel."There is no contradiction between support for Israel's security and support for Palestinian statehood. Indeed, the opposite is true.""Let me be clear: the Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically."A British official said the atmosphere was electric as Lammy told the delegates that the UK's announcement was being made "with the hand of history on our shoulders." Lammy went on to delve into Britain's imperial past in Palestine which is deeply intertwined with the roots of the conflict between Jews and Arabs for control of the land Britain once captured Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire in 1917 and controlled Palestine until in 1948, exhausted and out of ideas to deal with what was then a full-scale war between Arabs and Jews, it handed over responsibility to the UN and left Palestine. Immediately, Israel's first prime minister David Ben Gurion declared independence, and Israel defeated an invasion by Arab the UN David Lammy recalled how Arthur Balfour, his predecessor as foreign secretary had in 1917 signed a typewritten letter promising to 'view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.'But the document, known as the Balfour Declaration, also stated "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It did not use the word Arab, but that is what was said Britain can be proud of the way it helped lay Israel's foundations, But the promise to Palestinians, Lammy said, was not kept, and that "is a historical injustice which continues to unfold."Britain's conflicting promises fuelled and shaped the conflict. A time traveller going back a century to Palestine in the 1920s would find the tension and violence depressingly way the UK hopes to end the misery in Gaza, create peace in the Middle East and remedy the historical injustice Lammy described is to revive the two-state conference in New York at which he was speaking was chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. It has produced a seven-page document aimed at creating a way ahead to revive the two-state solution, which includes condemnation by Arab states of Hamas and its 7 October attacks on window for peace through the two-state solution appeared to be locked shut after the collapse of the peace process that started with real hope in the decision to recognise Palestine is a diplomatic crowbar to try to reopen it.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer hopes his ‘pathway to peace' will end war in Gaza. History suggests he may struggle
The former British prime minister Harold Macmillan once said that there was no problem in the Middle East because a problem has a solution. Keir Starmer is the latest incumbent in No 10 to try to prove Macmillan wrong through a plan that has been described by Downing Street as 'pathway to peace' for Gaza and the wider region. The record of Britain's previous interventions do not augur well. The famous commitment drafted by the then British foreign secretary Sir Arthur James Balfour, to 'view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people', was integrated into Britain's UN mandate over Palestine between 1923 and 1948 and paved the way for the birth of Israel. But the declaration contained a key qualification: nothing should be done to prejudice the 'civil and religious rights' of Palestine's 'existing non-Jewish communities'. Britain afforded Israel de facto recognition on 30 January 1949, in the last stages of the first Arab-Israeli war, and de jure recognition on 27 April 1950. For many Palestinians, the second part of the Balfour promise is yet to be made good. In the Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Britain saw a destabilising force that might subvert pro-western states such as Jordan. For Israel, Nasser was a threat for allowing Palestinian militants permission to launch attacks against it from the Gaza Strip, then controlled by Egypt. Matters were brought to a head when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Under a secret agreement, Israel agreed to attack Sinai, the Egyptian peninsula between its western border and the canal. British and French forces would then intervene to 'separate the combatants', seizing control of the canal zone. The Anglo-French element was a debacle. The Israeli part of the plan went well. Israeli forces captured Sinai in its entirety, destroying three Egyptian divisions. From then on Israel was considered to be a major fighting force by the west. Britain exported arms to it from the 1960s in the belief that a strong Israel would reduce the chance of further war in the region. In the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Britain played a key role in drafting United Nations security council resolution 242. It embodies the principle that has guided most of the peace plans that have followed – the exchange of land for peace. The resolution called for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict', such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 'respect for and acknowldgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force'. It would come to be criticised for being vague and for its depiction of the Palestinian people as lacking national rights, describing their cause as the 'refugee problem'. Britain's role as a key mediator was overtaken by the US when President Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, together at Camp David. The plan sought to set up a 'self-governing authority' in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual 'final status' talks. The European and British perspective was voiced in the Venice declaration of 1980 issued by the then European Economic Community. 'The Palestinian people … must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination,' it said. It further added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be involved. This was controversial as the PLO was at this stage calling for Israel's destruction. It prompted criticism from the US. But even under the solidly pro-Israel leadership of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, British policy was to avoid straying too far from the European consensus. Major in 1995 became the first western leader to meet Yasser Arafat inside the Palestinian Authority area which had been created through the Oslo accords overseen by the US president, Bill Clinton. The second intifada, an uprising which raged from 2000 to 2004, took place after Arafat did not agree to the terms of the two-state proposals tabled by the-then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and Clinton. The intifada overlapped with the 'war on terror' that followed the 9/11 attacks. Tony Blair used his close relationship with the US president George W Bush to issue the 2003 roadmap peace plan that would resolve all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 through implementation of a two-state solution. It failed. After leaving Downing Street, Blair was appointed as the envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The quartet consisted of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia. Blair sought to develop the Palestinian economy and improve governance but struggled to make headway. He resigned after nearly eight years in the role, with Palestinians criticising what they saw as his closeness to Israel. Britain's policy under the succeeding prime ministers – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – has been criticised for reciting the mantra that a two-state solution is the only way forward without expending energy or political capital on the goal.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Victorian approach to welfare shames Labour
With more than seven million low-income families still going without essentials, the JRF's cost of living tracker shines the spotlight on just how acute this situation is for low-income families with three or more children, with almost nine in 10 going without the essentials, and the highest number of families in arrears or holding a loan for essentials since their tracking began. This is a terrible indictment of Keir Starmer's government – no progress, no change, the very opposite of what Labour promised. Indeed, what strikes me most is just how little has changed since they came into power – the SNP are still pushing the UK Government to scrap the two-child cap and implement a similar benefit to our transformational Scottish Child Payment; Westminster is still digging its heels in. READ MORE: Keir Starmer commits to recognising Palestinian state after intense pressure My former colleague Alison Thewliss was dogged in challenging the Tory government on the two-child cap; yet here we are under Labour, and the asks remain the same while the situation is getting worse. The JRF says their modelling does not include impacts of cuts to health-related elements of Universal Credit for future claimants currently working its way through parliament. Damning reports like this should focus minds ahead of the delayed publication of the Child Poverty Strategy, with its recommendation to get rid of the two-child cap and strengthen the foundations of the social settlement. But is the Government listening, are they reading these reports, are they paying attention to best practice elsewhere, i.e. in Scotland? (Image: PA) On paper Labour say they are – for instance, the secretaries of state for work and pensions, and for education, say in their foreword to the introduction ahead of this new strategy that there is a lot they can learn from action already taken in Scotland. But in the chamber, it's a whole other ball game. Not a week goes by that I don't think of that phrase 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' while I'm sitting in the House of Commons listening to what seems to be a coordinated strategy by Labour to attack the Scottish Government in Holyrood at every available opportunity even when the focus is very much on their own failures at [[Westminster]]. That's politics I hear you say, but it's more than that. In fact, I'd go as far to say it's like a kind of 'blame shifting' to use psychological terminology. A perfect example comes from just a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray MP, was answering questions in the chamber on the Government's Spending Review. My colleague, MP Stephen Gethins, challenged Murray on his party's failure to scrap the two-child cap only to be met with a defensive volley on the number of children that are homeless in Scotland. A little rudimentary digging on Shelter England's website and you can see that of course Murray failed to highlight that in England, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation with their families, which is the highest number on record and represents a 15% increase in the last year alone. Additionally, there are 126,040 households in England experiencing homelessness in temporary accommodation, another record high and a 16% increase in 12 months. This is hardly a record to be proud of, and not a position of strength from which to point the finger at other governments. Fortunately, a decent amount of finger pointing has already been done by Labour's own MPs, with their welfare cuts described as 'Dickensian'. Those MPs have been punished subsequently, more blame shifting rather than addressing the key problem which is Labour's terrible policy decisions. And only one of them was a Scottish Labour MP, while the others continue to bow and scrape to Number 10. Even the UN has waded in to highlight how Labour's welfare cuts could threaten the human rights of disabled people. And this from a government led by a former human rights lawyer. It reminded me of the UN's comments on the Tory government's welfare policies, with the special rapporteur on extreme poverty describing 'workhouse' conditions and the 'systematic immiseration' of the British population thanks to austerity. Red or blue, it's the same old same old. Collaborating with Scotland on best practice on social security – not just with our Scottish Child Payment but with our efforts to reinstate the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners before Labour's major U-turn, and now our upcoming mitigation of the two-child cap – would change the narrative on Labour's Victorian approach to welfare. This would signal a more grown-up approach to politics than the current tribal mudslinging variety that Labour favours. Don't hold your breath. So, every time you hear a Labour MP, particularly the Scottish ones, have a poke at Scotland and the SNP Government at Holyrood, remember this coordinated blame shift. Because behind every snide and spurious comment about Scotland lies a truth that Labour can't deny – they're failing to make any progress, and fast. All the more reason for Scotland to be rid of Westminster for good.
