Starmer’s latest U-turn is his most striking yet

Keir Starmer U-turns so often that he should probably be interviewed on a roundabout. His dedication to gyration was on full display this Sunday when Laura Kuenssberg asked him about the so-called ‘conflict’ in the Middle East:

#BBCLauraK plays Starmer a clip of him when he was running to be leader, saying he would pass legislation requiring MP's to give their consent before the govt takes any military action.

KS says there is no inconsistency with him now supporting the bombing of Yemen without a vote pic.twitter.com/cH4NcBxqvM

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) January 14, 2024

A man of (non-military) action

Kuenssberg showed Starmer the following video:

Starmer in Jan 2020:

'Blindly following the Americans is the wrong thing to do. I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first, the lawful case for it was made, secondly, there was a viable objective, and thirdly, if you got consent of the Commons.' https://t.co/xZPtUecgZS pic.twitter.com/BKLtjgkfj4

— j (@jrc1921) January 14, 2024

Starmer responded, as reported by the BBC:

Sir Keir insisted there was “no inconsistency” between his previous comments and his support for the air strikes in Yemen, telling the programme that there is a difference between this action on Houthi targets and “sustained” military action.

A couple of problems with this.

Firstly, that wasn’t a distinction he made previously. Secondly, how do we know the strikes against Yemen aren’t going to result in “sustained” military action? You can’t punch someone in the nose then act surprised when a fight ensues. Or maybe he could? Because – let’s face it – the man is either completely without shame or an idiot.

People had a lot to say about Starmer’s latest interview:

Confronted with a 2020 clip of himself arguing parliament must vote before military action, Starmer insults our intelligence.

He claims bombing Yemen isn't "military action" as there aren't boots on the ground.

By that logic, the Libya intervention wasn't military action. https://t.co/cT4bpznSJz

— Alex Nunns (@alexnunns) January 14, 2024

Keir Starmers argument is now that these air strikes don't constitute military action.

I used to worry that people who said his relationship to the truth is as bad as Boris Johnson were guilty of hyperbole.

But he's absolutely descending rapidly.#BBCLauraK

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 14, 2024

.@Keir_Starmer is a liar and a fraud. #BBCLauraK pic.twitter.com/L0Tik8hRYe

— James Foster (@JamesEFoster) January 14, 2024

Starmer was already attracting criticism beforehand:

Keir Starmer saying he supports military action against Yemen because civilian lives are at risk. Something he’s suddenly worried about after supporting the denial of food and water to Palestinians, and refusing to call for a ceasefire as they are massacred. https://t.co/EroRGRwOlE

— Frankie Boyle Updates (@frankieboyle) January 12, 2024

In 2020 Keir Starmer said no more illegal wars. He said that he would only back war if it was legal, had a viable objective and Parliament gave consent. The current military action on Yemen has none of these yet he supports it. pic.twitter.com/CLv1BpfNKI

— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) January 12, 2024

And the embarrassment is spreading:

"Sir Keir, when he ran for Labour leader, he said this, he'd never back military action abroad without a parliamentary vote. Whats changed?"

Wes Streeting said thats not what Starmer envisaged. #trevorphillips pic.twitter.com/cmLj1kUVZZ

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) January 14, 2024

Arms for the rich

Starmer managed to slip another U-turn into his interview – this time on arming Saudi Arabia:

Another u-turn looming into sight…Starmer resiles from previous pledge to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia – now “subject to review”. We don’t need a review to know that Saudi’s appalling human rights record hasn’t changed #bbclaurak

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) January 14, 2024

The BBC reported:

Separately pressed on whether he had changed commitment to stop the UK selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Sir Keir said he supported a review into all UK arms sales which will “make clear” what Labour’s position is.

Once again, Starmer was confronted by his own words from 2020 when he said (as reported by the National):

the UK “should stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia” over concerns about their use in the Yemen civil war.

In response to his own stance, Mr Robot repeated:

We will do a review to look at the sales, look at the countries and the relationships we have.

And then just:

We will do a review.

When you need to carry out a review to confirm if you’re planning to do what you said you would, things are clearly very far from “clear”:

Starmer in 2020: Stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Starmer now: Nah https://t.co/75fLbmEslr pic.twitter.com/Mf4zTo46Um

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) January 14, 2024

Yet another Keir Starmer U turn. Three years ago he pledged to stop arms sales to the Saudi regime. Now he’s going to have a “review”.

Has there been another Labour leader who has broken so many leadership campaign pledges? And he’s not even got the keys to no 10 yet. #bbclaurak pic.twitter.com/Att5G5n2yH

— JOHN NICOLSON 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 (@MrJohnNicolson) January 14, 2024

I have had to add more U-turns from Starmer. No longer promising to stop arms to Saudi Arabia or a prevention of military intervention act. pic.twitter.com/VC5U03FWkn

— Angie #It’sHardNotToBeLeft (@ripplecabin) January 14, 2024

A man of his word (just not the words he literally says)

So here’s the question: is it really Starmer’s fault if people take him at his literal word, and not the second, unspoken meaning he secretly thinks in his head?

The answer to that question is ‘no’. Although, in true Starmer-style, by ‘no’, we actually mean ‘yes’.

Featured image via BBC