Main Edition
US
FR
The most revealing moment of Starmer's premiership to date.(Credit: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty)
Power corrupts, famously — but it also reveals. With each decision a political leader takes, we catch a glimpse of the instincts which guide them. The same is true of Keir Starmer’s decision to revoke arms licences to Israel, the most revealing moment of his premiership to date.
Henry Kissinger, the late sage of power, offered the best explanation for why, in politics, instincts matter more than policy. In most democratic societies, he observed, power is little more than the obligation to make decisions that are deemed too important or finely balanced to be taken by anyone else. Easy or unimportant decisions do not reach the prime minister, because they have already been taken further down the chain of command. Only the most difficult ones — those where the evidence is inconclusive and the consequences profound — land at the leader’s desk.
When such verdicts are required, a leader often does not have the luxury of time to wait before making the call. The decision needs to be taken in an instant: to shoot down a plane, respond to a provocation, stop a war, ban arms exports before the arms are used. Instead, leaders must rely on judgement, a quality defined less by intelligence than character — that great mishmash of moral assumptions, prejudices and instincts formed in early life. Margaret Thatcher was driven by the patriotic, self-reliant methodism of her father. For Tony Blair, it was the missionary zeal of the Christian progressivism he found at university. But what is it for Starmer?
I was recently told by someone close to the Prime Minister that he is hard to read, but at heart is just a simple social democrat. But something about this doesn’t ring quite true. Starmer is not driven by the kind of deep commitment to socialism that fueled the post-war Labour giants from Clement Attlee to Harold Wilson. That much is clear from his time as leader of the opposition. Rather, at the heart of Starmer’s deepest instincts and assumptions is something more banal: “Left-legal liberalism,” as another senior figure put it to me with obvious disappointment. “That’s the instinct — and I’m not sure he even knows it.”
In the absence of god and socialism, Left-legal liberalism is the Starmerite code. Faced with a choice to withdraw export licences to Israel at the risk of undermining Britain’s diplomatic standing or to maintain them but potentially be forced to revoke them later by the courts, Starmer chose to follow the legalistic process. He hoped it would signal a compromise, both maintaining Britain’s legal obligations and its diplomatic standing, by removing only a small percentage of the overall number of export licences already in place. This was not driven by morality or realpolitik, but legalism. The risk, though, is that it is a compromise which does the exact opposite of what it was intended, annoying everyone and assuaging no-one.
This is the danger Starmer faces on all fronts. If Left-legal liberalism is the Starmerite code, it is one that seems uniquely ill-suited to our world in which the mythical “rules-based order” of old has been replaced by the hard realities of power politics: a world in which Houthi rebels control the Red Sea, the United States has all but abandoned the pretence of global free trade, Vladimir Putin mockingly dismisses the international warrant that has been issued for his arrest, and China continues to do everything in its power to extend its global influence. Even the US’s prospective prosecutor-in-general Kamala Harris, who on the face of it shares many of Starmer’s Left-legal instincts, will be forced to act with far more hard-nosed realism if she wins the presidency.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI saw Starmer’s responses at PMQ, and I have to say he grows less impressive with every appearance. His words amounted to a denial of responsibility for actions he and his government are taking as active policy, by hiding behind “the framework”. He may get away with it on foreign policy, but there is no chance such a stance will wash if the same approach is used for domestic policies which affect millions. For example, I can just imagine Starmer and Miliband trying to dodge responsibility for sky-high energy prices in a year or two by effectively saying: “it ain’t us guv, it’s our obligations and commitments under globally signed green treaties, this ain’t our fault”.
And even on Israel, their stance is patently inconsistent. Presumably the government have a view if Israel’s actions are justifiable as acts defending themselves against an existential threat, or they are not justifiable as targeting civilians. Whichever way their view, they are compelled either to sell arms to Israel fully or not at all, because it’s not as if what they are still selling could not be used inappropriately if they have decided Israel is doing something wrong. As the author says the half way house doesn’t make sense either from a moral or a realpolitik stand.
He seems to be blaming the Conservatives for everything—even decisions he had made himself. And he cannot remember he’s the PM, even from the despatch box. Twice within the space of thirty words yesterday he referred to Rishi as Prime Minister—and five times in total in PMQs.
Well, if it worked for the Tories when they came to power, it is worth a try…
Yes, what Johnson referred to as ‘cake-ism’.
yes, it was amusing the first time. now seems a bit strange.
That won’t last much longer, soon have to start owning his own decisions – past, present and future.
Senility already? He’s obviously trying to out Biden Biden!
Starmer is a follower, not a leader.
A leader would not have pretended not to notice the grooming gangs, or let Savile off the hook to pander to the BBC, or knelt before the grifters of BLM, or prevaricated so nervously when asked to define a woman, or folded so totally to the train drivers and doctors, or made such a creepy speech about the nonsense that is ‘Islamophobia’, or grovelled in the face of the Guardian and the petit bourgeois rent-seeking NGOs when it came to dealing with the discontents caused by the brutal class war offensive of Blairites immigration policy.
Starmer will never take a stand against the vested interests that own the British state. He’s a cipher.
Once a lawyer, always a lawyer.
Law, and the way it teaches you to think, is in some ways advantageous for a political career and a lot of famous politicians have been lawyers (Barack Obama springs to mind).
But whether your legal background becomes an asset or a drawback once you’re in office and making decisions depends on whether your legal mind acts a) as a framework for thinking things through in a rational, structured way but you see it as one tool among many and are still able to be creative/daring, or b) whether you fixate on the existing rules and compliance with them, ignoring all other relevant political considerations (i.e. very unlegal and irrational things like peoples’ feelings and the optics of a decision which may be perfectly rational but just doesn’t “go over well”).
Starmer seems to fall into the second camp. He seems to be one of those lawyers who is super-clever in his knowledge and application of the rules but quite dimwitted when it comes to understanding how those actions are going to land with voters/diplomatic partners.
I’ve argued elsewhere that if politics is like a schoolyard then the Conservatives are like self-important Bullies, now punished for their indolence, and Labour are Sneaks who are driven to ensure everybody follows ‘the rules’.
Starmer appears to be the Arch Sneak – perhaps because of his DPP legal background..
Speaking of his background, I wonder if anyone (politician/journalist/blogger etc) will ever dare to question him on Rotherham and other places?
According to Starmer, CEOs of corporations should be held responsible for the operational activities of the company they head up and the defence that they were not aware of day to day issues is irrelevant, but he, whilst being the head of the CPS, used exactly that defence in regards to both Savile and Rotherham. Like his pension arrangements there is one rule for others and one rule for him. A shameless and total hypocrite.
You are too kind to Starmer, he ‘uses’ the law to push through changes that were not declared in his manifesto
Oh I’m no fan – but I come from a legal background too and I guess there is a certain residual solidarity with people who you know have the same “affliction”.
On the one hand, it’s nice to observe or discuss with other lawyers because you know how they think things through and can therefore trace the lines of their arguments more easily. On the other hand, you get reminded of all the annoying characteristics of lawyers (sneakiness, pigheadedness in pushing and defending one’s own argument, fixation on the letter of the law when a pragmatic, less legal solution would fit the situation much better…)
Starmer seems happy to change some laws but not others. Is he in charge or isn’t he?
Having had the misfortune to have read for the law myself, To me Starmer is so much more like the normal, tedious, inferiority complex driven, golf club bar bore, man made fibre clad ” Slister” than the far more creative, eloquent, often intellectually anarchic ‘ silk’ at The Bar, that he quite amazingly became… or maybe the lower middle classes, to whom becoming a slister was the equivalent of being awarded a Dukedom, have now taken over The Bar like everything else in The New Pipls Republic of Dysfunctiona?
Agree it seems so, if it actually is so then is McSweeney doing his job, or not? Hmm..
Lt Colonel Paddy Blair Mayne was a lawyer, head of the Law Society in N Ireland. The difference was that Mayne was man of exceptional courage and a leader: a hard man who led hard men into combat and won.
Starmer is a clerk.
Paddy Mayne – Wikipedia
The reality is that very few in Western society have been tempered by adversity and their mettle tested before entering politics. Consequently they fail at the first test; Major, May and Starmer being good examples.
Starmer and Harris seem very similar to me. Both are former prosecutors, both seem somewhat intelligent, but don’t look very quick witted. Both are lefties, but not committed to any principles at all really. They change with the wind and don’t seem to have any core values. Both seem unwilling and incapable of contending with the radicals within their party.
Both also have a track record of not prosecuting high profile nonces when they had the chance. Starmer with Jimmy Saville and Harris with the Catholic clergy in California (Starmer too decided not to do much about this in the UK either).
And the Rotherham gangs
They’re not that intelligent.
Neither can think on their feet. That’s a mark of real intelligence – being able to respond quickly to new situations – indeed actually seeing this as a positive challenge. There’s far more intelligence on display in the cut and thrust of the UnHerd comments section than amongst people like Starmer and Harris.
Suggests they got where they were “not entirely on merit”. But we already know that for Harris (ref Willie Brown here). There’s a reason Kamala Harris doesn’t do many live interviews. Likewise Starmer.
In a recent interview Kamala Harris said her values had not changed .Unfortunately the follow up question ‘What are those values?’ was not asked.
Starmer has already shown what he is. A legal coward.
Anything that looks genuinely challenging, illegal immigration, Gaza, Islamist terror will be met with legal fudgery and stalling.
Objections to his lack of action on the other hand will be swiftly condemned as far right. The bar for which is so low now that it is a meaningless accusation.
He already looks a petty man. Tinkering at the edges. Afraid to do what is really necessary.
“…potentially be forced to revoke them later by the courts…” doesn’t make any sense to me in any context. You are the government, and your foreign policy is your foreign policy regardless of it’s merits. In any sane state, the courts should have no business thwarting the foreign policy of any legitimately elected government.
Ya. I thought this was weird as well. The courts now have veto power of foreign policy.
It’s worse than that. The British judiciary believes it now has the right to veto all democratic policy. The retired senior judge Lord Sumption has written extensively about the increasing involvement of the courts into areas that were once the sole preserve of Parliament.
Indeed the courts will take over and Starmer will welcome that because once he has used all the “conservatives did it” excuses he can simply say we must follow the law.
Can you point me in the direction of finding his comments? I’m interested in this
A good start is listening to the BBC Reith Lectures 2019:
In Praise of Politics – Law and the Decline of Politics by Jonathan Sumption.
Now that British politicians can’t hide behind the EU and blame Europe, they use the courts and international law instead.
This probably comes from some international treaty that Britain is bound by and therefore the courts have to apply those rules. And Starmer seems to have made the decision that he doesn’t want to take the risk of having his decision knocked back by the courts so stayed one what he probably saw as the safe side, although there was still a price to be paid as there is for any decision on things like this.
Even legitimately elected governments have to obey the laws that they have signed up to and are in force. Otherwise you would have a tyranny of the majority (not even that in the case of the UK) over the minority. They can of course change them but it comes at a cost. By the way, there is nosuch thing as a “sane state”
This is not remotely consistent. If elected governments are required to follow the letter of law of they have signed up to, then there would have been an obligation on Lammy to request Netanyahu to submit himself to the ICC when he went to Israel. If Netanyahu refused, Lammy would then be obliged to put him in handcuffs and bring him in – but I don’t see any evidence that happened.
Also, I assume the US and other countries who supply Israel with arms are also signed up to the same laws. Which ones have decided to put their halo on and stop selling arms to Israel then?
Also what exactly would be the cost you talk of then? The same argument keeps being made about the ECHR as well, but I never see anyone providing a breakdown of the disadvantages. I’m naive about these things so would you care to elucidate?
Lammy has no jurisiction in Israel. USA and Israel do not recognise the ICC. You need to find out these facts before you proceed to judgement on them
These international laws were created to prevent the return of Nazism and Communist takeover post 1945. They made sense in 1945. However, they have become method whereby the sovereignty of democratic countries has been reduced. The growth in bureaucracy and laws has benefited a clerical bureaucratic class which obtains power from administering laws but takes no responsibility for problems which arise.
The development of international terrorism and crime post 1968 has become almost impossible to stop because democratic countries cannot use force without being sued. After Munich 1972 , Israel hunted down killed those responsible which would be impossible if countries followed international law. As Orwell pointed out, most left middle class people despise patriotism, British culture and physical courage so international law becomes an excuse to not to take effective action. The greatest threat Britain has had to deal with post 1945 was the Malaya Emergency. Communists, mostly Chinese used the skills and weapons supplied by Britain in WW2( SOE Force 136 ) to start a wave of terror. Britain recruited ex Chindits, Commandos and SAS with the skills to win the confrontation. Laws which prevented us winning were suspended
Starmer’s decision over UK arms to Israel simply confirms that the lawyers are replacing our democracy.
The mandate provided by winning a general election can, and is, clearly being usurped by the law.
We, the electorate, must oppose this attack on our democratic mandate but until we have a ‘leader’ of substance there is no chance.
Being elected by only a third of voters hardly gives him a true social and moral mandate
Completely agree. Except that it isn’t even clear which laws the lawyers are following… The ICC, for example, is just a fancy cover for criminals: https://youtu.be/6wrhzDBvhEc?si=cOM70aZtVOokrLCk
Tom McTague might broadly be considered left-leaning and sympathetic to the Labour cause; his words therefore carry a certain weight when making assessments of a newly-incumbent Labour PM.
When he therefore refers to the early decisions of the previous eight prime ministers being seen as having set the tenor of their tenures and, with hindsight, their eventual downfalls, to see Starmer’s eventual downfall writ large in the arms to Israel decision in real time is pretty damning. In effect, he seems to be writing the political obituary of a newly-minted PM with a huge majority.
Of course, the same could be said of Liz Truss in terms of real-time assessment, except that Starmer (barring some untoward personal event) will be PM for a much lengthier period.
Suddenly, 2029 seems an unconscionably long way away.
I think he wrote his obituary when we failed to call on all “communities” in Britain to come together post riots . It was a devisive, parochial narrative at a time when at least some nod to a broader, vision-led call to unity was required.
It became clear at that point that he lacked the imagination to understand why the various riots/ marches/demonstrations were happening. They may have been behaviours that were illegal but a pragmatic response was needed and never came. It’s not a good sign for the next few years of chaos that is happening in the world.
Excellent article. I’m sure I’ve been highly crtiical of many of this author’s articles here, but this is bang on.
The point about instincts is fundamental since these are what matter when unplanned real time decisions need to be made.
And I agree that Starmer is very much a one club golfer who sees everything from a legal perspective (and even more unfortunately, not the true English common law legal perspective, but the corrupted derivation of it by second, third and fourth rate lawyers like Harriet Harman).
I’m saying it here first – Starmer’s going to make Sunak seem like a good Prime Minister.
When has Keir ever shown any wisdom or insight into anything, their is not one original though or idea in his head. The guy copies everything that comes from his social peers.
Give the guy a chance: he’s the son of a toolmaker, don’t ya know…
He is a complete tool, no denying that.
It’s so deliciously ironic, and something I will savour along the forthcoming long bumpy ride of his premiership.
I wouldn’t go as far as that, meaning that all this legalism is a ruse and the Left will never get behind anything but a 2-state solution and will always throw a bone at the Palestinian cause.
The problem with this Labour government is that they are callous and ignorant, and will prove highly incompetent too.
Starmer’s scales of justice approach look half pregnant to me, and havw nothing to do with leadership (although I doubt we’d recognise latter in any of the political class). Starmer has another issue – watch his body language. when under perceived attack his body seizes up, his eyes pop, and he’s in full freeze mode. He doesn’t have the temperament for the big decisions.
I’m expecting more ill-conceived compromises combined with a great deal more authoritarianism – yes, maybe legalism as the philosophical solution to all ills, but underpinned by a fearful, somewhat neurotic disposition. In my view.
A bigger, defining, question for Starmer might soon arise when people start to hear about the fact that the UK are guarantor to billions of dollars worth of loans the Ukrainians are about to default upon.
We’re also on the hook for EU debt until 2026…
Indeed. One of the very worst things about the EU withdrawal agreement.
But I hadn’t realised there was a cut off in 2016. That’s actually very good news.
He’ll blame The Tories/Johnson/whoever…
Other than ousting the Tories, what did voters think they would get? It’s not like people change who they are just because they attain higher office. Starmer is who Starmer has always been.
He’s not a revolutionary. He’s not even in tune with what McSweeny describes as a man who can “meet voters where they are.” For years, those voters have been clear about immigration. Starmer’s first move has been to punish them for that. When someone shows you who he is, believe him.
Plus look who he has (been obliged?) to include in his cabinet. He could be struggling both inside and outside the Party and so fail to make his mark.
Yes, they’re ‘behind him’!
Lawyering is essentially an abdication of responsibility based on the false premise that decisions, pleas and cases are in sevice to, and determined by, the written laws. This allows lawyers to inerpret the law as they like and deny accountability for anything. Starmer is the perfect example. His decision on Israel is a fast and loose interpretation, as no case has yet been brought, and no judgement made. So Starmer is pre-judging, ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and instead trying to claim the decision is not his, but an application of law, in a case where no judgement has been made.Or as Kemi Badenoch put it: “It is not true that the removal of Israel arms licenses was a legal decision. Keir Starmer should not hide behind this fig leaf. It was very much a political decision… I know this because I oversaw arms licenses and reviewed the legal advice.
The other possibility is that Starmer is acting under orders from Washington to be ‘nasty cop’ to the Americans’ ‘nice cop’. He may not even understand what is happening.
This is v funny!
I hope this is sarcasm.
Well, I’ve never heard of “left-legal liberalism”. I asked ChatGPT what it is and it said:
Left-legal liberalism is a term used to describe a specific political and legal orientation that blends liberal legalism (the idea that law is the primary mechanism for protecting rights and resolving social issues) with a leftist emphasis on social justice and equality. While the two terms (left-legal liberalism and left-liberal legalism) are often used interchangeably, they may carry slightly different connotations in specific contexts.
Key Features of Left-Legal Liberalism:Focus on Legal Means for Social Change: Like left-liberal legalism, left-legal liberalism believes that legal frameworks and court decisions can and should be used to address social inequalities, protect rights, and promote justice.Liberal Values with Leftist Goals: It emphasizes traditional liberal principles such as the rule of law, individual rights, and due process but aligns these principles with more leftist goals, like reducing income inequality, protecting labor rights, and expanding social safety nets.Judicial Intervention for Progressive Change: Left-legal liberalism often supports judicial activism, encouraging courts to interpret laws in ways that promote social justice, particularly concerning marginalized groups (e.g., racial minorities, the working class, or LGBTQ+ communities).Use of Constitutionalism: Left-legal liberals often believe in interpreting constitutions to advance equality and social justice, focusing on rights expansions rather than preserving the status quo.Criticism of Market Libertarianism: Left-legal liberals often critique laissez-faire economics and libertarian approaches to law, which prioritize free markets and individual autonomy over collective social welfare and state intervention.
Tom McTague bang on the money, as always. It is incredibly worrying that, in Starmer and Reeves, we appear to have a duo who think you can govern WITHOUT politics. Everybody says they hate politics, and especially politicians but my, how we notice when the political antennae is absent from government. When decisions do not cohere into a narrative that makes sense to people. The Israel decision is another example of trying to please everyone and pleasing nobody. What is our foreign policy? Does anybody know? Domestically, who in the name of god thought that picking a fight with pensioners as one of the first things you do was going to ‘land’ well? Possibly another mini budget could end up defining a government.
Many out here want change and want this new government to succeed. However, those we elect to high office are in the business of POLITICS. You have to be good at politics to get things done and to take people with you. Otherwise, you are very quickly derailed.
In summation: he’s a jobsworth.
An jnstjnct to uphold the rule of law does not strike me as the worst for a leader to possess!
Author’s critique of Starmer as potentially too much ‘left legal liberalism’ may well have some weight. I wouldn’t put too much stock though in the arms/Israel/Gaza issue as the major signifier. This is a perilous tightrope for any leader right now and he’s also well aware what UK does won’t make much difference. It’s hardly Wilson’s canny avoidance of Vietnam involvement for which initially he was highly criticised from the Right in the UK.
A bigger call may be what he allows the Storm Shadows to be used for in Ukraine, although here that’s tricky until US leads. There is much interlinked to US satellite guidance.
He may overthink things, but not acting impulsively has some core wisdom too.
If it “doesn’t make any difference what the UK does” (and I quite agree), then the correct course of action was to do nothing (no change).
He’s actually created a problem where none existed.
Not his first unforced error. And it certainly won’t be the last.
I’m not sure. Whilst what we do on Arms sales doesn’t make much difference to the actual conflict, it does send a message that we do not agree with the full conduct of the operations and cannot condone. That’s probably where the core of our nation is.
I have a completely different impression: that the ‘core’ of our nation sees through Hamas’ human sacrifice strategy and would want our leaders to do what Israel is doing to protect the nation (even though this government wouldn’t).
I think you conflate wishing to avoid civilian casualties with support for Hamas. I think most appreciate that hitting Hamas bound to hit some civilians. War is cruel and pitiless and Hamas started it. But there are still some limits. IDF had almost 12mths now.
Arguably the world’s leading expert in urban warfare has this to say about Israel’s methods: https://youtu.be/a4nbPsPia_g?si=uA1RjTcGd2UI_o7E
Starmer’s decision was typically performative and pointless. The US provides about 70% of Israel’s arms, the Germans about 28% and the rest are bits and pieces. What might have made a difference would have been Starmer refusing to send spares for the (notoriously fragile) F-35s that the IDF are doing most of their genociding with. These are still being sent and will continue to be provided. Starmer could have taken significant steps to stop the slaughter – his rancid regime have decided not to.
You prove Bonhoeffer’s theory each & every time you hold forth about your non-existent genocide, the so-called victims of which are would-be perpetrators of an actual genocide.
Even the Global Council of Imams doesn’t share your weird views: https://youtu.be/9gEPHbvcjz0?si=XzLPqPBg23qYMCNw