Starmer to recognise a Palestinian state
The official Downing Street read-out of today's session stretches to 664 words. That is a testament to the anger and anguish which this issue is causing in both the Labour party and in government. Today's announcement has looked likely since Friday, when more than 130 of Starmer's own MPs signed a letter demanding recognition. That rising political pressure reflects domestic opinion hardening on Gaza. The Prime Minister told the cabinet today that 'the recent images of starvation had deeply affected the British public and underscored the increasingly intolerable situation.'
Starmer stressed both the importance of aid getting into the region and the extent to which British action was being undertaken in a multilateral spirit. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, updated his colleagues on work being done on this aspect with both Jordan and the UAE. An assessment will be carried out ahead of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in September; given Israel's current posture, this looks likely to be a mere rubber-stamping of British recognition.
Out of the 193 UN member states, 147 already recognise Palestine as a state – including Russia, China, India, Spain, Ireland and Norway. In six weeks' time, the UK and France are set to become the first G7 countries to do the same. Israel's historic relationship with both Germany and the United States mean that neither of those countries will likely ever follow suit. But in Canada, Mark Carney is under some pressure to do so; Italy's Giorgia Meloni has thus far dismissed such calls.
Benjamin Netanyahu has remained defiant, gambling that as long as he enjoys American support, he need not pay too much heed to the international community. But Starmer's announcement today follows some striking criticism of Israel yesterday by Donald Trump, in which the US President said there was 'real starvation' in Gaza – despite the claims of Netanyahu's administration. In Whitehall, Trump's remarks at that press conference were interpreted as a cautious amber-light to Starmer, enabling him to proceed with UK recognition of Palestine.
Britain's role in impacting the outcome of the war in Gaza has been grossly overestimated by some on the Labour benches. But today's decision could be important in offering a useful reminder to the Israeli government on how opinion is changing both in London and in Washington too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Marco Rubio criticizes Prime Minister's 'clumsy' Palestine pledge
One of Donald Trump's most senior allies has suggested Sir Keir Starmer's 'clumsy' pledge to recognise a Palestinian state has reduced the chances of a ceasefire. Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, warned that Hamas could refuse to allow a peace deal with Israel in the wake of the Prime Minister's announcement. Sir Keir this week sparked a furious backlash by saying Britain could recognise Palestinian statehood in September, ahead of the UN General Assembly. The UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. Hamas must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', Sir Keir also said - although ministers have insisted they 'won't negotiate' with the terror group. The PM's foreign policy shift came as both France and Canada also announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state within weeks. But Mr Rubio, in an interview with Fox Radio, branded the move 'irrelevant'. 'It doesn't mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state,' he said. The US Secretary of State added: 'There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it. Number two, they can't even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can't tell you who will govern it. And I think number three, it's counterproductive.' Mr Rubio also warned that recognising a Palestinian state represented a 'reward' for Hamas, who carried out brutal attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023. 'At the end of the day, the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side. So you are creating this reward,' he added. 'The problem with the UK statement. The UK is like, 'well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognise a Palestinian state'. 'So if I'm Hamas, I say, 'you know what, let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognised by all these countries in September. So they're not going to agree to a ceasefire. I mean, it's so clumsy.' Mr Rubio claimed that 'domestic politics' had pressured the UK, France and Canada into moving towards recognition of Palestine. 'They're actually hurting the cause, they're not helping,' he continued. 'Because their statement isn't going to change anything other than it encourages and rewards Hamas, who now have every reason in the world not to agree to ceasefire and not to release these hostages.' Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Thursday that the US President had 'expressed his displeasure and his disagreement with the leaders of France, the UK and Canada'. She added that Mr Trump 'feels as though that's rewarding Hamas at a time where Hamas is the true impediment to a ceasefire and to the release of all of the hostages'. Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson this morning insisted that 'neither side has a veto on' on what Sir Keir will decide to do in the coming weeks. Asked if the UK will still recognise a Palestinian state if Hamas hasn't released all the hostages it holds by September, the Labour MP told Times Radio: 'I think neither side has a veto on what the British Government chooses to do in September. And that will be an assessment that will be taking place in September. I mean, the PM has set out what he expects from Israel.' 'Obviously, that's a democratically-elected government, very different to Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. But he's been very clear about the need for a ceasefire, for the humanitarian aid to get into Gaza now, and also for Israel to set out clearly that they will not be annexing the West Bank, and also that they are committed to a future peace process.' 'And this is what the PM setting out our objective around a Palestinian state is about, it's about recognising that these horrific circumstances that Israel and Gaza and the Palestinian Authority are in at the moment, we need to deal with this. We need to actually have the ceasefire, and then move on to trying to re-establish that peace process and the establishment of what my party and I think generally is accepted, a two-state solution.'
Rhyl Journal
8 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
PM urged to review oil policy after Trump labels North Sea ‘a treasure chest'
Andrew Bowie called for a review of policies affecting the oil and gas industry. The US president was in Scotland earlier this week and during his visit he described the North Sea as 'a treasure chest for the United Kingdom', and warned fossil fuel taxes make 'no sense'. He also took aim at 'some of the ugliest windmills you've ever seen', referring to wind turbines off the coast near Aberdeen. Mr Bowie has written to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer calling for a meeting in London to explore the effects of oil and gas policies. Following his flying visit to Aberdeenshire with President Trump earlier this week, I've written to the Prime Minister urging him to heed the calls of all those he met on the EPL, overturn ban on licenses, ensure a future for our region & secure Britain's energy 👇 — Andrew Bowie (@AndrewBowie_MP) August 1, 2025 He referred to the windfall tax on the profits made from extracting UK oil and gas, introduced by the previous Conservative government in 2022 and retained until 2030 by Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves. In his letter to Sir Keir, Mr Bowie wrote: 'As president Trump has said, the UK's 'very high' tax on oil and gas companies is a deterrent to investment. 'The extension of the energy profits levy (EPL), coupled with uncertainty around future licensing and investment signals, has created a climate of instability that threatens jobs, innovation and the region's economic resilience. 'President Donald Trump's remarks during your visit – calling Aberdeen the 'oil capital of Europe' and urging the UK to 'bring it back' – reflect a sentiment shared by many in the region. 'May I urge you to consider the president's call to 'incentivise' domestic production of hydrocarbons? 'Oil and gas still have a vital role to play in our energy mix and economic future; British people would rather see the UK benefit from domestic exploration and drilling than import more from Norway and Qatar.' Mr Bowie, who is the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, added: 'Will you urgently call a meeting in Downing Street to conduct the review in partnership with industry leaders, our world-leading supply chain business, and the local workforce to ensure a coherent and sustainable path forward?' During his visit with Sir Keir, Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social website: 'North Sea Oil is a treasure chest for the United Kingdom. 'The taxes are so high, however, that it makes no sense. 'They have essentially told drillers and oil companies that, 'we don't want you'. 'Incentivise the drillers, fast. A vast fortune to be made for the UK, and far lower energy costs for the people.' Speaking at his Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire, Mr Trump said: 'When we go to Aberdeen, you'll see some of the ugliest windmills you've ever seen, the height of a 50-storey building.' Gesturing with his hands, he added: 'You can take 1,000 times more energy out of a hole in the ground this big.' Sir Keir at the time said oil and gas are 'going to be with us for a very long time, and that'll be part of the mix, but also wind, solar, increasingly nuclear'. Aberdeen has been chosen by the Government to host the headquarters of GB Energy, a state-owned company set up to accelerate the rollout of renewables.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Peter Kyle's flawed attack on Nigel Farage shows which way Keir Starmer should turn
'Keir cannot afford another fiasco like welfare,' one Starmer loyalist told me, recalling the government's humiliating climbdown on proposed cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by Labour MPs. The prime minister knows the episode showed his way of governing is unsustainable. He is consulting people widely this summer about how to turn things round. There's a fierce internal debate. In Keir Starmer's right ear, Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, tells him to focus on wooing back voters in the red wall from Nigel Farage. In his left ear, soft left cabinet ministers urge a more progressive approach to woo centre left voters who have deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. They argue that these lost voters outnumber defectors to Reform by a margin of three to one. The soft left's allies in Downing Street want Starmer to emulate Bill Clinton, who fought back against a right-wing populist – Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives – after a rocky start to his first term in 1993. One minister admitted: 'There is a battle over the direction of the government. There is only one person who can resolve it. Keir has got to decide for himself – based on his values, who he is, who he wants to be.' The left ear whisperers want the PM to trust the instincts which are serving him well on foreign affairs on the domestic agenda too. Starmer appeared to be tacking leftwards when he told Tom Baldwin for the paperback version of his biography published on Thursday: 'We have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive party.' He has hinted that he wants to tackle child poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit limit. The PM has nodded to Labour critics who argue – persuasively – that his government has sometimes acted left but talked right, so it's no wonder it gets little credit from progressive voters. He said issues such as clean energy, nationalising the railways and increasing the national minimum wage should be shouted louder from the rooftops. 'We should show we're proud of all that,' he told Baldwin. Starmer views this as part of 'telling a better story'. But you can only tell one if you know the direction in which you are heading. The battle isn't over yet; I'm told McSweeney is not convinced about a shift to the left. His critics say the shortcomings of attacking Reform head-on were illustrated when the science secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage was on the paedophile Jimmy Savile's side in the heated debate over internet regulation. The attack line was reportedly approved by Number 10 but backfired. It was the sort of smear we might expect from Reform. The lesson for Starmer: Labour can't 'out-Farage Farage' and the public will vote for the real thing if Labour tries to look like Reform-lite. Allies of McSweeney believe the red wall will decide the next general election so Labour's primary pitch must be to the white working class. His internal opponents insist that trying to re-run the 2024 election triumph, McSweeney's greatest hit, will not work next time. They dispute the idea that Labour "won" the north and Midlands last year, saying it reaped the benefit of a split on the right between the Conservatives and Reform and that Labour regained seats seized by the Tories in 2019 mainly because Tory voters switched to Reform. At the next election, Farage will likely hoover up the right-wing vote. Crucially, the left vote will be split this time – inflicting deep damage to Labour to unless Starmer can appeal to left of centre voters. He won't do that by tacking right, cutting benefits for the disabled and pensioners or aping Farage. For Starmer to win a presidential contest against the Reform leader, being the anti-Farage candidate will not be enough: he will have to offer progressive voters more than he has done so far. Another reason why Starmer should listen to the buzz in his left ear is that the new socialist party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will offer another alternative to disenchanted Labour voters. It already has 600,000 registered supporters. Starmer won't lurch to the Corbyn hard left – and rightly so. But the sensible decision he should make this summer is that it's time for Labour to live up to its name and its values and stop pretending to be something it is not.
