Labour leader Keir Starmer’s grip on his party appeared absolute just last month. After shrugging off a protester who had doused him in glitter onstage during his party conference speech, he shimmered like a disco ball as he stoutly backed Israel’s right to defend itself after Hamas’s October 7th attack. Starmer received a standing ovation from most of the delegates in the hall for his comments.
That scene would have been inconceivable during the reign of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, a ferocious critic of Israel who was accused of letting anti-Semitism run riot in the party. Starmer said he had to rip out this bigotry “by the roots” after taking over from Corbyn.
Less than four weeks on from his sparkling speech, Starmer’s sheen has worn off as he tries to contain the biggest crisis of his leadership to date: a party rebellion over the extent of his backing for Israel. He has spent the past week trying to hold together his party’s front bench, which is divided over the issue.
As the death toll mounts from Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, calls for a ceasefire to save innocent lives have grown, but Starmer has, so far, stuck to his refusal to join them. He has argued that a ceasefire would only embolden Hamas and this remains Labour’s official party line.
Much of the damage was done on October 11th, the morning after his conference speech, when Starmer gave a now-notorious interview on LBC radio. He appeared to suggest that Israel had “the right” to cut off food, water and power to two million Gazan civilians. Starmer quickly added that Israel must also comply with international law, but it was too late: his comments went viral among British Muslims, many of whom are Labour voters.
Prominent Muslim Labour politicians have begun to deviate from the party line, throwing down a direct challenge to Starmer’s authority. Anas Sarwar, the leader of a resurgent Scottish Labour, said Starmer’s LBC comments were a “mistake” that had “hurt” Muslims, and called for a ceasefire. Sarwar’s father, Mohammad Sarwar, was Britain’s first ever Muslim MP.
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London with whom Starmer has previously sparred over environmental policy, has also called for a ceasefire. Andy Burnham, the directly elected mayor of Manchester, Britain’s third-largest city, has done likewise.
As the weekend approached, at least 16 members of the Labour front bench had publicly deviated from the party line, undermining the idea of collective responsibility that applies to shadow cabinets. Usually, this would be a resigning or sacking offence. Starmer, wary of a potentially ruinous wave of resignations, has tried to shepherd his front benchers into line rather than threaten them.
About 50 of Labour’s backbench MPs have also called for a ceasefire, along with close to 300 Labour councillors, many of them in constituencies with large Muslim populations such as working class areas in the north of England. About 30 Labour councillors have resigned over Starmer’s stance. The rebels have not just been among Corbynites embittered by Starmer’s ousting of their man. Leadership loyalists have also started to waver.
The threat is not just to Starmer’s authority as leader. His stance could also cost Labour in the general election next year if Muslim voters hold his Israel-Gaza stance against Labour candidates. In Scotland, for example, Labour hopes to take up to 25 seats off the Scottish National Party (SNP), whose leader, first minister Humza Yousaf, has family stuck in Gaza and who has been hugely critical of Israel. There are large Muslim populations in many urban constituencies around Glasgow where Labour plans to make gains at the SNP’s expense.
Similarly, the backing of Muslim voters will be crucial in many tight “red wall” seats in the north of England, where Labour is fighting the Conservative party. Those voters will hardly flock to the Tories, who are even more staunch supporters of Israel, but the fear among senior Labour strategists is that some may choose to stay at home.
The intensity of grassroots opposition to Starmer’s Israel stance has shocked Labour parliamentarians in many electoral battlegrounds. “I’ve never seen this quantity of emails coming through my inbox and I’ve been an MP now for Birmingham Perry Barr for 23 years,” said Khalid Mahmood, who told ITV News that he had received 3,000 complaints from constituents.
On Tuesday, 20 days after his disastrous LBC interview, Starmer attempted to regain control of the narrative with a speech at Chatham House. He held the line that a ceasefire was the wrong option “for now”, as it would only boost Hamas. But he called for “humanitarian pauses” by the Israeli military to allow in medical and food supplies, while his “for now” comment gives him wiggle room should Israel’s prosecution of the war get even bloodier for Gazan civilians.
He also distanced himself slightly from Israel by saying its right to self-defence was not a “blank cheque” to do what it wanted, and he suggested that “basic utilities” should not be blocked from innocent civilians. He also said he would deal “sensitively” with front benchers who disagreed.
But the thrust of his message remained: the man was not for turning on the substantive issue.
His Chatham House intervention appears to have slowed the rebellion, but it has not stopped it. On Wednesday, the day after his speech, front bencher Azal Khan, the shadow minister for exports, joined those calling for a ceasefire. On Thursday night, the two Muslim leaders of Labour-run Burnley and Pendle councils in Lancashire called for Starmer to resign.
It is a test of the resolve of the UK’s presumed prime minister-in-waiting but also, perhaps, an opportunity for Starmer to demonstrate how he would cope with such crises in Downing Street.