Stumbling Starmer

My ambivalence about Sir Keir Starmer's leadership of the Labour Party is a matter of record but I have been willing to tolerate him (with gritted teeth) as the only viable option for ousting the Tories after thirteen years of misrule.

However, my tolerance has been tested once again by his maladroit (one might say cackhanded) comments about the Israel-Hamas conflict. In an interview on LBC Radio he appeared to suggest that Israel had a right to cut off water, electricity, fuel and food supplies to the Palestinian Gaza Strip. As a lawyer one might have expected him to understand that what he was apparently advocating was contrary to international law. Okay, so he's a barrister but is obviously not an expert in international jurisprudence and appears not to have read Article 33 of the Geneva Convention (how many of us have?). But, at a human level at least, he should have realised that what he was saying was unconscionable. If he was unsure he should have prevaricated, or better still kept shtum.

Now, having faced the ire of the British Muslim community and lost several Muslim Labour councillors he has back-pedalled by suggesting he misspoke in his LBC interview. At the same time he has also managed to alienate Welsh Muslims following a visit to the South Wales Islamic Centre which Centre leaders say he 'gravely misrepresented' in subsequent comments. 

I have twice experienced a Muslim electoral backlash against Labour; once when campaigning for Oona King in Bethnal Green & Bow in the wake of the Iraq invasion when she lost to George Galloway and Respect, and recently when campaigning for John Biggs and Labour in Tower Hamlets. Labour lost the Mayoralty and control of the council to Lutfur Rahman and Aspire in a rejection by Muslim voters of Labour's LTN scheme. Politically, it is no more a community to be disregarded than the Jewish one.

Starmer's predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, made the grave error of antagonising the latter community and now Starmer has repeated his mistake with the former. As both demographics are (or were) loyal Labour voters it seems incredible that Starmer could be so crassly insensitive at a time when he needs all the support he can get - and the country needs him to get it too.

Its not even as if he inflicted this damage on himself and his party defending the moral highground - on the contrary, he's clearly on the wrong side of history on this issue. He has now clarified his position but he needs to be both more cautious and more bold, admittedly a difficult balancing act to pull off but, had he more experience and gravitas (one might even add more human empathy and compassion) or was simply lighter on his feet, he could have pulled it off. 

He might get there in the end but it could take more time than he's got before the next general election. Faced with another five years in opposition Labour will soon be looking for a new Leader so he needs to accept that he's no Harold Wilson, or even Tony Blair; he's a tyro who requires time to learn his statescraft.

Unfortunately, time is running out but a modicum of humility while he works on it would go a long way. Any more gaffes like this latest one and he could blow the lead he has so assiduously and painstakingly built up. This is no time for ill-judged, ill-informed off-the-cuff remarks.

Careless talk costs votes.

Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more