Nato was a victory for Starmer on the global stage, but now he's at war with his own MPs
Sir Keir Starmer seemed chipper as he boarded the plane home from the Nato summit on Wednesday evening. He cheerily thanked hacks in the travelling press delegation for what he said had been a great two-day trip to The Hague. And looking at Nato alone, it had been a success.
Across the board, allies signed up to a historic increase in defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. After briefly wavering on his commitment to Article 5, even Donald Trump fell in line.
And following a public love-in with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte – who unnervingly, dubbed him the 'daddy' between the two warring nations of Iran and Israel – the US president conceded that the alliance was no longer a 'rip off', saying he is with is his European friends 'all the way'.
Meanwhile, Starmer was able to pitch Britain as a leader on the world stage by cosying up to Mr Trump and purchasing 12 new F-35A fighter jets, massively ramping up Britain's nuclear capabilities.
But what was left unsaid when the PM briefly greeted the media sharing the plane with him was that he was flying back into the most significant rebellion of his premiership – a revolt which threatens to shake the foundations of the historic majority he won just 11 months ago.
Speaking at a press conference about Britain's contribution to defence spending at the Nato summit just hours earlier, the prime minister was forced to deny suggestions that he might be forced out of office before the next election.
'Many people predicted before the election that we 'couldn't read the room' we 'hadn't got the politics right' we 'wouldn't win an election after 2019' because we lost so badly.
"We got a landslide victory. So I'm comfortable with reading the room and delivering the change the country needs', Sir Keir insisted.
But at home, his MPs are much less convinced.
More than 120 Labour MPs have signed an amendment which would kill off the government's flagship £5bn welfare reforms entirely. And there is a growing feeling that the prime minister has failed to listen to them, after he used part of his Nato presser to dismiss the rebellion as 'noises off'.
'No 10 sees MPs as irritants and fodder', one Labour MP with her name on the amendment said. 'We're all working hard and this is how they treat us. It goes back to the point about how arrogant and out of touch they are.'
The prime minister's comments at the Nato press conference displayed a real lack of empathy for his own MPs, and ironically, a distinct failure to read the room.
It would be hard to argue the prime minister is a wholly unempathetic person. An in-depth profile of the prime minister in the New Statesman published earlier this month showed how deeply he feels the weight of sacrifices made by individuals putting their lives on the line to serve their country.
But in his first year in office, it has become increasingly clear that the prime minister is much more comfortable navigating foreign diplomacy than he is with dealing with angry backbenchers.
It is in this area that Sir Keir seems entirely unable to empathise. He is known for being pragmatic rather than ideological, and appears to be bored by political manoeuvring.
At times, this can provide a refreshing break from the Westminster bubble. But, taken too far, it can be the opposite.
Starmer seems to have lost sight of the fact that in some scenarios, political manoeuvring is more than just self-serving posturing. Sometimes, it's a fight for hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are scared of losing vital financial support.
The prime minister is now frantically meeting with leading MPs involved in the amendment to try to secure their backing by offering concessions. But the fact that it was allowed to get this far in the first place has angered those who would naturally be inclined to back the prime minister. Many are now threatening to dig their heels in until the bill is dead in the water.
As Starmer returns from what was a strong showing at Nato, he must now display some of the empathy and political nous that he so effectively shows on the global stage. If he is unable to do so, he may well lose the domestic battle – and it could be catastrophic for his authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
BBC staff told not to fight with family and friends over Gaza coverage
The BBC's director-general has warned staff not to 'fight' with their friends and family who are critical of the broadcaster's coverage of the war in Gaza. Tim Davie acknowledged that the conflict has been 'incredibly difficult' for staff from communities who consider that its output has not been 'representative of its views' during an all-staff 'ask me anything' session earlier this month. He urged them to adopt 'common sense' in response to concerns from one staffer that they frequently faced accusations about the BBC being a propaganda machine and biased about Gaza, according to the entertainment industry website Deadline. 'I love my job, but sometimes I can't tell anyone I work here for fear of arguments,' they said. Davie told staff that there was no expectation for them to defend the BBC's output. 'There's no pressure on anyone to fight for the BBC in that context,' he said. 'They've got to look after themselves, protect their family relationships, protect their friendships. That is sacrosanct to me'. • Tim Davie warns staff about 'antisemitic behaviour' at the BBC He added that trust in the BBC among audiences remains high and suggested staff could point to the data that reflects this if they felt it was appropriate. 'We're all advocates for the BBC. We're all ambassadors for the BBC. But let's be reasonable, and let's use common sense about this,' he said. 'Some issues are very tough, and I know it's been incredibly difficult for some people within communities who do feel that the coverage is not representative, in their view, of what is going on.' Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News, suggested that some critics of the BBC's coverage are stuck in online echo chambers. 'A lot of people are reading a lot of content on social media feeds, which are algorithmically driven. So it reinforces the rabbit hole of perspective,' she said. • Viewers' opinions on BBC News to be gathered for first time 'When people come out of that quite polarised environment in their media feeds and meet BBC content, which is striving to be impartial, they can feel that it is an attack on their values.' The BBC faced criticism this week from the producer of a documentary about doctors working in Gaza after it decided to drop the film. The corporation said that it was handing Gaza: Doctors Under Attack — also known as Gaza: Medics Under Fire — back to its producer, Basement Films, because of fears that it was biased. Basement Films' head, the former Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear, apologised to the contributors and criticised the BBC for reversing its original decision, having promised to release it on six occasions. • BBC will not ban Kneecap from its Glastonbury coverage Production was paused in April pending the conclusion of an investigation into another programme, Gaza: How To Survive a Warzone, which featured the teenage son of a Hamas official as a narrator. The investigation was undertaken by Peter Johnston, the BBC's director of editorial complaints. The report is understood to have been delivered to Samir Shah, the BBC's chair, and is expected to be published shortly.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Has any government crashed as quickly as this one? Yes, and it's not even close...
Almost one year into the Starmer administration and the question is already being asked: has a government ever crashed so quickly? There's no denying the dismal poll ratings in which Labour now regularly runs behind Reform UK, the disappointing election results, mixed signals on the economy, U-turns, disarray in the parliamentary party and talk of 'regime change' (in No 10, not Tehran). There is obvious cause for Labour supporters to be disheartened, but some reasons to be cheerful too… How bad is the decline? It's not as bad as it looks. On the basis that, at the last general election, Keir Starmer converted Boris Johnson's 2019 Commons majority of 81 into a Labour overall majority of 174, it was indeed a stunning, historic performance – the best 'conversion' for any party since the Second World War. However, such a picture flatters to deceive. It was all done with fabulously tepid public support. Labour's vote share was 33.7 per cent, less than any other winning party in modern times, with only about one in five of the electorate expressing positive support. Starmer 's personal ratings were also modest as he went into the general election, certainly by comparison with, say, Tony Blair's stellar image in 1997. It's true that Labour poll ratings on the eve of the 2024 election were over-optimistic, and it's a little hazardous to compare real results with polls. But the overall point remains; Labour were never as loved as we might falsely imagine or discern from the eccentricities of the British electoral system. But is it still bad? Yes, in terms of a government emerging from a general election with a comfortable majority and sinking so low within a year of that result. But if we extend our timescale a little, it's also true that almost every such government suffers 'mid-term blues'. Blair's prolonged honeymoon after 1997 is a notable exception, and some administrations have gone into apparently terminal decline within about two to three years, but have recovered. The most spectacular post-war example would be how the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 wrecked Anthony Eden's government after he'd won an easy victory over Labour in May 1955. In that case, a change of leader helped preserve Tory rule the next time round. Another precipitous decline in reputation and standing – actually faster than Starmer's – followed John Major's election win in April 1992. His majority was slight (21 seats overall) but he'd beaten Labour by a solid seven percentage points. However, on 16 September 1992, 'Black Wednesday', sterling was forcibly ejected from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Tory party's reputation for economic competence was shredded with it. An impressive economic recovery followed, but with little beneficial effect on the divided Tories' poll ratings. Even at the time, it looked like the die was cast for Labour's triumph in 1997. Slightly exceptional must be Boris Johnson's squandering of the historic achievement he enjoyed in 2019. He made his own share of mistakes – overpromising, underdelivering, Partygate, sleaze and misleading parliament – but the effect of the Covid pandemic on the economy also had something to do with his mostly self-inflicted fall from grace. After all, his personal ratings peaked during the vaccine rollout in 2021, and he was gone a year or so later when party and public lost patience with him. Which prime minister got it right? Margaret Thatcher. Her government, elected in May 1979, had a decent mandate but fell into deep economic trouble and disarray by 1981 in the depths of recession. She was rescued by a divided opposition, economic recovery, the 'Falklands factor' and a certain steadiness of nerve. A landslide followed in 1983. What about Labour governments? They don't win that many elections. A close analogy would be Harold Wilson 's second administration; he was also elected with a landslide – a majority of 97, in 1966 – but by 1968, the pound had been devalued, his economic planning policy was dead, and the government's popularity had collapsed, with historically bad local election and by-election results. However, Wilson and his chancellor, Roy Jenkins, took Reeves-style tough decisions and went through the 'hard slog' of tax rises and spending cuts to stage a formidable recovery. They still had to sacrifice major legislation to backbench revolts (reform of the Lords and the trade unions respectively), but were not far off winning the 1970 general election. Instead, the victor was a Tory leader most had written off as hopelessly bad at the job. Any other comforts for Labour? Well, Starmer is only the third Labour leader to win a general election, and he's already been in office longer than Liz Truss, who breaks all records for political dive-bombing (albeit some distance past the previous general election). Starmer will probably surpass Alex Douglas-Home's 363 days in No 10 (1963-64), and if he makes it to the next general election, he'll beat Johnson, Callaghan, Heath and May for time in office. He might even win again to complete his 'decade of renewal'. A volatile electorate, the intervention of Reform UK and the Tories' extreme weakness might throw up all sorts of surprises. History proves that economic success can sometimes yield dramatic post-nadir electoral dividends. It might happen. If so, by 2033 or 2034, Starmer could look back on his current travails as mere 'noises off'. But not yet.
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Iran denies any meeting with US next week, foreign minister says
DUBAI, June 26 (Reuters) - Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump's statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week. The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the U.S. were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the U.S. attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. The U.S. and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear programme is solely geared toward civilian use. Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites 'were not little' and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran's nuclear programme, which he said would inform Iran's future diplomatic stance.
