Starmer: The Ultimate Morality Coward?
Published by Stephen Milward in Politics · Thursday 16 Jul 2026 · 5 minutes
Tags: Starmer, morality, coward, lawyer, international, law, Trump, Venezuela, Maduro, Iran, Israel
Tags: Starmer, morality, coward, lawyer, international, law, Trump, Venezuela, Maduro, Iran, Israel
It's clear that, at a time of enormous international tension, we need a leader who will stand up and be counted in the arena of international law. Keir Starmer has shown that he is not that leader with regard to Trump's action in Venezuela.
Trump's actions are a clear breach of international law. If it's not, then we should follow the same standards as Trump and get Netanyahu, who has arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for war crimes (i).
Starmer is a morality coward with regard to Venezuela. Instead of standing up for international law and the sovereignty of states, he dithers and waits for what his master tells him to think and do. His complete weakness in the face of fascism and imperialism shows him to be a charlatan, a disgrace and a danger. We need and deserve a leader with backbone, not some dog on a lead doing his master's bidding for a titbit reward.
What is to stop China doing the same with Taiwan, Russia with the Baltic states, America with Greenland, if international law is ripped up by despots? Starmer doesn't have the answer to that. He is not someone of principle, who would face down blatant aggression. He has surrendered. He is a coward. Then came the Iran war and Starmer changes direction.
06 March 2026: As I write this, the illegal American/Israeli war on Iran is taking place, with no idea as to how it will end. Starmer, to his immense credit, did not agree with the Americans and decided not to join the offensive against Iran. That would have been an act of political suicide, given the history of the Iraq war. However, he has used the military to defend British interests against Iranian attacks. Starmer has made clear that he will not join in an illegal war with no achievable plan set out in advance. This is in stark contrast to Trump's loyal followers, Badenoch and Farage, who would take no notice of international law. The lunatic fascist far-right in Britain sees Starmer as some sort of traitor. I see him, in this case, as at last standing up to Trump, thereby aligning the UK with a more Eurocentric stance. My concern is that Starmer acted in one way regarding Venezuela, and the opposite regarding Iran, regarding his reaction to Trump. I would ask for consistency of approach. When backbone is on view, the people will understand. The opportunists can go to hell.
01 April 2026: Starmer holds a press conference, saying again that the UK will not be dragged into the illegal America/Israeli/Iran war. This is good, since it shows that the lessons of Iraq have at least partly been learnt. He must continue to stand up to Trump, no matter what pressures he faces.
Trump must be defeated. He must go. Our children's futures are not safe with him and his fascist sect.
22 June 2026: Starmer resigns as leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister. I'm not sorry about that. The mistakes he made (well documented) never gave him a chance to make this government a favourite for a second term. For a commentary on this, read 'The rise and fall of Keir Starmer: where did it all go wrong?' by Jonathan Freedland (ii).
Whoever succeeds Starmer should reconnect with the membership and the great mass of people and deliver left facing policies, including nationalising the utilities, a wealth tax, protecting the NHS against pariah American companies, supporting the welfare state, banning government usage of social media sites, particularly X and more.
16 July 2026: Starmer's last day as PM. I'm not sorry. Starmer uses the excuse that 'he changed the party' to get in to government after the 2019 defeat and the ousting of Corbyn. His mission - to move the party of the workers to the right. His failure - to did not recognise that the space was already inhabited by other political parties and that by shifting the party to the right, he collided with those parties and took on some of their policies, blurring the lines that are defined by capitalism. This has not helped the poor, even though Starmer claims that it has. His gigantic error was to hurt the weakest as soon as he took power, thereby illuminating his priorities. He has said himself that the move on winter fuel payments was a mistake, but how did it ever occur to a Labour party and PM that taking money away from the most vulnerable in society was anywhere close to the history and reason for forming the party in the first place? The anger created by this betrayal will never be forgotten or forgiven, since it was entirely avoidable. Do I think his successor, Andy Burnham, will take back control of the party from the current narrow and distanced leadership and political machine? Maybe at the margins, but I want to hear Burnham talk without hesitation or shame, about socialism and the necessity of real political action, not reforms of existing channels of power. Actions, not words, are required. It may be, deservedly, Labour's final chance to remember why it exists.
(ii) The Guardian 22 June 2026: 'The rise and fall of Keir Starmer: where did it all go wrong?'
