Starmer needs to learn: you can't do business with warmongering madmen
Even the most fierce critic of the Labour Party must surely see that they inherited a mess when it came to power. It was on paper a landslide but only just as it chocked up a three figure list of marginals. This makes it vulnerable. Add to this is not what a Labour Party is meant to be. It's not a socialist party, it isn't popular and Starmer, quite frankly, is not well liked. He gaslights the press, has never honoured a pledge, he is ruthessly disingenuous and nobody trusts him.
Sir Keir Starmer’s domestic unpopularity is no accident. While the government continues to implement austerity measures and fail the poorest and most vulnerable in society, Starmer has all too often opted to echo the right-wing narrative rather than offer a real challenge to the status quo. His attacks on the very people who need protection: benefit claimants, the elderly and vulnerable and those who rely on public services have painted him as a leader more interested in appeasing the establishment than standing up for ordinary people. This failure to challenge the rich and powerful, particularly when it comes to fairly taxing the wealthiest or holding COVID fraudsters to account, has left a sour taste and traditional Labour have eitehr left the party, being purged or stayed at home. Rather than focusing on the corruption that riddled the Tory government’s COVID VIP lane, which saw public contracts handed out to friends and donors of those in power, Starmer's approach has been marked by hesitancy. His dithering has given space to the forces that have made life harder for the working class. This failure at home is mirrored in his international stance, where he seems all too willing to engage with dangerous autocrats, threatening to diminish the very values he should be fighting for.
Starmer is out of his depth. Especially when it comes to international relations. This is especially so with Trump. There are few independent watchers who would say that the second term of Trump is not worrying to say the least. In his second term, Donald Trump’s foreign policy has continued the themes that marked his first: a volatile mixture of self-interest, transactional diplomacy, and aggressive nationalism. Only this time they're on steroids and his lurch to the insanity and empathy free sociopathology of the authoritarian right are there for all to see. His desire to "Make America Great Again" in the international arena wasn’t about cooperation but about reshaping the world order in his image, often to the detriment of global alliances and economic stability.
In order to deal with a man like Trump, we need a man with diplomatic skills who can navigate the whirpools and rapids of insanity and self-inerest and steer a true line through them. Kier is not this man. Not by a long shot.
Trump’s second term has inevitably exacerbated his earlier recklessness, particularly in the realm of trade. His reliance on tariffs, particularly against China and the European Union, has already begun to unravel global supply chains and inflate costs for consumers. This approach, designed to assert American dominance, of course only further destabilised global markets, hurting industries worldwide. The damage caused by his trade wars wasn’t just economic, it was a calculated move to shift the balance of power in a way that suited his narrow worldview. The long-term effects of these policies will continue to reverberate across industries and will no doubt lead to increased costs for businesses and workers, with little to show for it in terms of long-term strategic gains.
Even as he left office following his first term, Trump’s influence did not dissipate. Had he won a second term on the bounce, it’s likely that his disregard for multilateral agreements, his strengthening of authoritarian alliances, and his ‘America First’ policies would have continued to erode international cooperation. His actions would have undoubtedly fuelled further divisions on the world stage, aligning with the very forces that undermine global stability. We've had a four-year hiatus that included an insurrection before the US's single most baffling act of national self-harm brought him back with gusto. Even the Daily Mail, a paper that slavishly supported Trump in the 45th Presidency is thinking hang on a minute in the 47th. And this is the paper that supported Mussolini, Pinochet and Hitler.
Starmer’s attempts to engage with such a figure, believing that diplomacy could moderate Trump’s dangerous tendencies, are clearly a mistake. You could say that he has to - and that vomit inducing episode with the invite from the King would underline this. But Instead of fostering peace, this would risk legitimising a form of international diplomacy built on the whims of a man who thrives on division, power, and conflict - and dragging the UK into any conflict that Trump may accidentally cause. That's if Trump remains in NATO of course.
Trump's Tariff's will hurt the UK as well as everywhere else. Does Starmer have the balls to deal with it? Sadly, few think so.
And then there's Putin. The Russian president is a prime example of someone who has used the guise of diplomacy to further his own ambitions, all while violently expanding Russia’s territory at the expense of his neighbours. His war in Ukraine has brought untold suffering to millions, yet he continues to enjoy a disturbing amount of leverage on the global stage, aided by allies and sycophants who prop up his regime.
Starmer’s flirtation with dialogue or compromise with Putin risks sending a message that Western powers are willing to look the other way when faced with naked aggression. The idea that any meaningful negotiation with a man who has repeatedly shown his willingness to subjugate neighbouring countries and silence dissent could bring peace is naive at best and dangerously irresponsible at worst. Peace comes at a price.
And all the time that we're looking the other way, Trumps isolationism is emboldening China to take out Taiwan. In China, Xi Jinping’s ascent has seen the brutal suppression of dissent, an expansionist foreign policy in the South China Sea, and a tightening grip on domestic freedoms, all wrapped in the veneer of economic success. His ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ is an expansionist plan not just for trade but for political and ideological control across the globe. Starmer’s desire for closer ties with Beijing, especially in light of Britain’s growing dependence on Chinese trade, must be tempered by a recognition that Xi’s regime is no friend to democracy, civil rights, or global stability. He should remember that in 2011, we surrendered our steel industry to China. How's that working out?
It could be argued that Starmer’s biggest blind spot is Israel. This goes back to the time of Corbyn when accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party were rife and over-stated. Starmer has a close relationship with the Israel lobby in the UK like the Board of Deputies (BoDs). Purging the left was enabled by Israel who didn't want someone who supported Palestinian human rights in Number 10. This is why the Labour Party was happy to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. In fact, two of his first actions as Leader of the Labour Party were to write to the BoDs and to purge left wing Jews from the Labour Party.
This would therefore imply that in his mind he sees no difference between anti-Semitism as a hatred of Jews and anti-Zionism as criticism of the policies of Israel - and he weaponised this to full effect. Of course, this then placates his own anti-Semitic actions of expelling Jews from the Labour Party.
To paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt, October 7th, 2023 was a day that will stay in infamy. The actions of HAMAS and the reaction by Israel has been heavily documented and has resulted in many innocent civiliands being killed and ICC warrants for HAMAS, Netanyahu and members of his war cabinet for war crimes. Before these events happened, Netanyahu had been indicted for corruption, a case still ongoing. Benjamin Netanyahu represents a brand of political leadership that prioritises the expansion of territory and military aggression over dialogue and diplomacy. In fact, the phrase often cited as anti-Semitic by Starmer and his team 'From the river to the sea...' is actually taken from Likuds own constitution and is an open declaration for ethnic cleansing. His tenure as Prime Minister of Israel has been marked by increasingly violent repression of the Palestinian people, alongside settlements in the West Bank and the destabilisation of the broader Middle East. Netanyahu’s government is a symbol of the kind of politics that treats war as a tool for maintaining power, and peace as an afterthought.
Starmer’s shall we say cautious [by cautious - read moribund] approach to Netanyahu’s actions has raised alarm bells among those who believe that Israel’s aggression should be met with strong condemnation rather than conciliatory gestures. Eyebrows have been raised as to why RAF sorties over Gaza during the fighting took place and questions were raised in Parliament about this. This indicates both the former PM Sunak and Starmer's alleged complicity in war crimes. At a time when the rights of Palestinians are being trampled underfoot and the region is on the brink of further conflict, any attempt to placate Netanyahu risks not only emboldening Israeli military expansion but also undermining Britain’s credibility as a mediator in the Middle East.
When you break enough promises, tear up enough pledges & gaslight the British public enough, you lose what page you're on
Keir Starmer must recognise that diplomacy with these figures is not simply a matter of pragmatism or negotiation, but a dangerous game with deeply corrosive consequences. It's 3d Chess and this weapon can't even manage snakes and ladders. The world has changed, and so too must our approach to international relations. The likes of Trump, Putin, Xi, and Netanyahu are not statesmen seeking peace; they are men who see power as a means to further their own agendas at any cost, whether that means war, repression, or destabilisation.
In the end, Starmer needs to learn the lesson that Chamberlain failed to. That business with madmen does not result in peace; it only fuels the fires of war. And as history shows, these madmen have no interest in diplomacy – they only crave power.
If we are being objective, Starmer's instincts to seek diplomatic solutions are commendable, but they are piss poor and must be be tempered by the understanding that some figures in power cannot be reasoned with in good faith. Whoever is pulling the strings in the shadows needs to up their fucking game. The future of British foreign policy must involve standing firmly against those who threaten the peace and stability of the world, not giving them the legitimacy and recognition that only feeds their drive for conflict. This is enforcing peace from a position of strength. As someone one the left I am uncomfortable about this, but we have being positioned in a new reality where we have few other options. Years of mismanagement have led us to this, together with WTFever is going on in the Whitehouse. Starmer’s weakness and particularly his domestic and international policies of pandering to the right are not only dangerous but embolden the far right not only abroad but ib this country as well. Starmer and his Labour Party could, by their own cowardice, dogma, pander and failure to read the wider message, inadvertantly become the hapless midwives to a successful far-right challenge to number 10 at the next election. A far right that is well funded by precisely the very people he should be pushing back against.
He has form and there is a president for this. When Starmer was shadow Brexit Minister under Corbyn, against the wishes of the Party at conference, he hatched his wagon to the campaign for a second referendum for the EU knowing full well this would throw the coming election. He can't say he didn't realise this was going to happen because a couple of months before the general election and as a result of his treachery, the Brexit Party swept the board at the European elections. And they didn't even have a manifesto or any policies.
If as he does, he frames himself as a forensic politician, he cannot possibly claim that the cause and effect of his actions in 2019 were unforeseen. Some would even say he engineered a catastrophic electoral loss in 2019 to take over the Party and purge the left. It's about time he acted with that level of ruthlessness that he showed the left, the poor, the vulnerable and the elderly, and focused that on the needs and interests of the electorate that put him into power, like the Leader he's supposed to be. If the country wanted a Tory PM they'd have voted for one.
We needed a Clement Attlee and we got a Ramsey McDonald. Slow hand clap.
