The phrases of Dame Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Commons international affairs committee, urging Keir Starmer to not lose his nerve on Iran within the wake of Donald Trump’s repeated private assaults have been enlightening.
She instructed The Independent: “We have to stick to what we believe is right.”
It was notable that she referred to a collective “we”, reasonably than the PM himself. The underlying message is that it is a authorities not counting on a person chief’s judgement however one which acts on the collective opinion of its MPs.
Her phrases, maybe unwittingly, highlighted that the issue for Starmer now’s that the extra Labour MPs inform him he’s doing the best factor, the extra he appears to be like like their prisoner.
The quickly unfolding occasions in Iran and assaults on UK sovereign bases in Cyprus have put the prime minister’s decision-making and motivations into the brightest of spotlights.
It has additionally uncovered his personal weak place in No 10, the place plotters gathering across the rivals seeking to succeed him underline how the struggle to save lots of his premiership overshadows all the things he does.
After all, this yr we mark the 375th anniversary of the publication of the English political thinker Thomas Hobbes’s work The Leviathan, the place he encapsulated the cornerstone of governance: “The defence of the nation is the primary obligation of presidency.”
If a prime minister is unable to make those decisions clearly without having his hand forced by others then he is unable to govern.
This was unintentionally illuminated on Friday when Starmer posted a video on social media of the week he had experienced regarding the incredibly difficult decisions regarding the war.
The video was aimed at providing justification for his careful middle-of-the-road approach to the conflict – initially refusing to take part or give the US permission to use UK bases and then authorising “defensive action” and giving Trump permission to use RAF bases for that purpose.
It spelt out his interpretation of international law, British national interest and a reflection of recent history with the Iraq War.
His statement to the Commons on Monday last week showed the immense anger and disdain of the Tories and Reform on the issue from the right but underlined the almost universal approval he received from Labour MPs, who have not so enthusiastically united behind him in this way at barely any other time in his premiership.
In fact such was the warmth and praise for his leadership and principles that you could believe talk of a new leader after the local and devolved elections in May was perhaps becoming more fanciful.
But then the leak from the national security meeting came out in The Spectator, which in fact showed Starmer wanted to let Trump use bases at Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to launch attacks on Iran. Worse, it seems that he was only stopped by four cabinet ministers, including potential leadership candidate Ed Miliband.
Given the precarious position he is in politically, Starmer could not have survived the resignation of four cabinet ministers and the inevitable backlash from the Labour backbenches.
Had that happened, we may already be in a leadership contest.
It puts an entirely different light on the PM’s actions and makes him once again look like a prisoner of his own party just as he was over his attempt to reform welfare, remove winter fuel payments from pensioners, or not end the two-child benefit cap.
In fact the two-child benefit cap situation is an interesting parallel. After being forced to end it by his backbenchers, Starmer has been going around making a virtue of the move as if it was his idea.
It now appears that he’s doing the identical over not supporting Trump on Iran when secretly he needs to.
It does assist him loads on this case that Tony Blair, the writer of the Iraq debacle which nonetheless overshadows Labour international coverage, is so crucial of his decision-making on Iran. But, sadly, it additionally underlines that Blair had the power to steer his MPs in 2003 and survive two cupboard resignations of Robin Cook and Clare Short.
Starmer doesn’t have that power. And for a chief minister who solely gained a large majority 20 months in the past it’s a painful place to already be in. It is just like the place Rishi Sunak discovered himself in with an embittered, divided Conservative Party, however that was after a dozen years of presidency.
The Iran battle has at the very least put a choice by Labour MPs on Starmer’s future again till after the native and devolved elections in May, at which level his destiny could also be sealed. The solely query could also be whether or not his substitute is one other prisoner to Labour MPs or one who can throw off the shackles and be a pacesetter once more.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-trump-war-iran-labour-mps-b2934287.html