A pic of a PM driving a tank worked in the 1980s. Why not in 2025?

Reviewing the seven-day military career (so far) of General Starmer in a deadly game of Russian Roulette.

By Alan Story

The year was 1982. Elected as Prime Minister in 1979, Margaret Thatcher saw her popularity plummet as the UK fell into recession. But she paved her way back to victory in the 1983 election by victory in the brief Falklands War, an improving economic outlook, and creating her fierce persona, dubbed “The Iron Lady”.

The 1986 cover photo of Thatcher driving a Challenger tank at a NATO camp reinforced her image of strength and, according to some, helped her win a third term the following year.

There definitely seems to be a thing about Prime Ministers accompanied by tanks and wartime imagery.

While in office, Boris Johnson loved to hop aboard any passing tank. Liz Truss tried the same stunt during her brief tenure. We can not bear to display again the ridiculous autumn 2022 photo of her, splashed in The Telegraph under the headline: “Liz Truss shows Vladimir Putin she’s got the mettle of the Iron Lady.”

Skip ahead to the past week. Now it is the turn of General – oops Sir Keir --- Starmer to embrace his own military image makeover shown in the bottom cover photo. On Monday (3 March), The Independent newspaper boldly declared: “KEIR STARMER; WAR LEADER.”

There is more than one parallel between Thatcher and Stammer. His own level of support has tanked after less than nine months in power. More than one recent public opinion poll has revealed that Labour is now trailing Reform, leaving the prospect of a second Starmer government far from certain.

But here’s Labour’s plan. Having recently begun to read the book “GET IN”, which reveals “the political subterfuge” and ditching of principles used by Starmer and his chief behind-the-scenes operative, Morgan McSweeney, to gain power as Labour leader and then PM, I think I now have a better insight into the ways that Starmer operates, including in the past week over the war in Ukraine.

As one review says, “In Starmer, he (McSweeney) saw the perfect vehicle for his vision: a man with no political identity but burning with ambition and a single all-consuming principle: to win.”

Over the Ukraine issue, image maker/ spin master McSweeny has been working overtime. And has learned from Thatcher.

You decide if Starmer, the supposed new “Iron Man” of our era, has won you over. And far more importantly, ask who has lost.

A full assessment of the past tumultuous week and Starmer’s military “leadership” - and definitely in quotes - would take at least 5000 words and far more time than I have today; here’s a far briefer version.

TUESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY

Chiefly in response to the demands of Donald Trump, the commander-in-chief of the world most powerful and most interventionist fighting force in world history, Starmer told Parliament he had decided to ramp up UK “defence” spending by billions of ££££. (The actual amount is in some dispute, but it is very large.)

To be very clear: the threat of global war (which might necessitate a justifiable increase in UK defence spending) has not noticeably increased in the last month. The UK is NOT under attack. The only significant change is based on the pronouncements of U.S. President Trump.

(As an aside, it is worth noting that Trump has ordered the US Pentagon to reduce its own budget by US$50 billion in the next five years. The message: save taxes for US taxpayers, increase them for yours.

To pay for the increase, Starmer said he would slash billions of £££ from the UK’s foreign aid budget. This move broke a Labour Party campaign promise, but hey, cutting foreign aid is another priority of the president of the world's richest nation.

In a thoughtful piece titled “Guns Before Butter”, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wrote: “ … a grown up approach to foreign policy would look at the underlying causes of war and alleviate them. This government is choosing to accelerate the cycle of insecurity and war instead”.

In a detailed article on 26 February, Mark Curtis explained further in DECLASSIFIED UK that “the Labour government’s increase in military spending and it's extraordinary new agreement with Ukraine are platforms for the UK arms industry, which Labour sees as key to economic growth in Britain.” Rachel Reeves was pleased.

So was Trump. Ever the dealmaker, he and his country also stand to gain from this arrangement, given that the United States is the world’s largest arms manufacturer and is the primary weapons supplier fuelling the Ukraine conflict. (Well, was the primary one before 4 March!) Further UK weaponry may be shipped to supply Israel’s war on Gaza; more on that war in at the end.)

THURSDAY, 27 FEBRUARY

Trump getting his invite for a state visit to the UK.

This was the day for Starmer to fly to Washington to personally convey the good news of the increased UK’s arms budget to Trump.

But first Starmer wanted to give an invitation to Trump to pay a second state visit to the UK. One sycophantic commentator in Labour List wrote: “ Starmer played his trump card – the King’s invitation to the President for an unprecedented second state visit to the UK – early and with theatrical skill, handing Trump the royal letter in front of the cameras. It flattered and disarmed his host, and set a positive atmosphere between the two men that lasted through the day.”

This journo called Starmer’s initiative “skilful diplomacy.” A good mate of mine, however, called it “shameless grovelling” and “excruciating”. And as we now find out, the effect of Starmer’s flattery has turned to dust in less than a week.

I am sure I am not alone in wondering: “WHAT IS THE DATE OF TRUMP’S ARRIVAL? (AS I WANT TO DO MY BIT TO BE THERE FOR WHAT SOME OF US HOPE WILL BE THE LARGEST MASS PROTEST MARCH IN UK HISTORY.)

The conclusion?Starmer’s White House visit was mainly an exercise an insipid back slapping. “Love in” best describes the event. Trump commended Starmer’s wife and remarked that if he had possessed Starmer’s accent, he might have been elected U.S. President several decades ago. Glad he was not.

Ultimately though, Starmer failed to accomplish his primary objective of the visit: to get Trump to commit to providing US military/ security guarantees to any possible peace deal in the Ukraine war.

FRIDAY, 28 FEBRUARY

Zelenskyy, Trump and Vance in Trump’s office last week.

This was the day of the very public diplomatic mugging in Trump's office between Trump, Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy, and U.S. Vice President Vance.

You have likely watched some of the footage - perhaps several times - and this piece, which is focused on Starmer, won't comment further.

Except to say that any person who has an ounce of fairness would conclude that Trump and Vance are mostly to blame. And that they both played lead roles in what was obviously a pre-arranged bullying session which was conducted in a language that is not the first language of the Ukrainian president and on the home turf of Trump. It reminded me of a play I once watched on domestic violence that focused on a very self-important goon.

Starmer’s response several days later was: you don’t like to see meetings like that, tut! tut! (If I was ever being physically attacked by a lout, Keir Starmer is the last person I would want to have watching my back.)

SUNDAY, 2 MARCH

With Zelenskyy having arrived in the UK from Washington on the Saturday, Starmer was able to hold his “Security Our Future” summit in London with almost 20 European leaders and the outgoing Prime Minister of Canada present.

Under the headline “Starmer announces 'coalition of the willing' to guarantee Ukraine peace”, here is how BBC News reported the summit later on Sunday:

“UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a four-point plan to work with Ukraine to end the war and defend the country from Russia.

The UK, France and other countries will step up their efforts in a "coalition of the willing" and seek to involve the US in their support for Ukraine, he said on Sunday - after calling a summit of 18 leaders, mostly from Europe and including Volodymyr Zelensky - three days earlier.

"We are at a crossroads in history today," Starmer said after the summit while Zelensky said Kyiv felt "strong support" and the gathering showed "European unity at an extremely high level not seen for a long time".

The event got widespread media coverage. Two quick points: 1) Exactly how Starmer’s four-point plan would “guarantee” peace was never explained. 2) Phrase maker McSweeney could improve his use of words. As Ricky Hale pointed out in Council Estate Media … “coalition of the willing” was George Bush Jr’s phrase when he decided to ignore international law to invade Iraq to punish it for 9/11, even though it had nothing to do with 9/11. If you’re serious about peace, you don’t use the most provocative language possible, and invoking the Iraq invasion and keeping the military aid flowing and putting boots on the ground and planes in the air is as provocative as it gets. It’s the type of language you use when you want to derail peace, but you can’t just come out and say it.”

Yet, Sunday’s high point for Starmer as a strategist was further topped on Monday.

MONDAY, 3 MARCH

The Prime Minister’s summit received almost universally positive headlines in that morning’s newspapers. Polls in favour of Starmer had jumped noticeably in just a few days and were his best results since November. On social media there was talk of a “Starmer bounce for his handling of Ukraine.” In the House of Commons, the Tories were full of praise for Starmer, and one said he had “not put a foot wrong” in his diplomatic manoeuvring over the weekend.

Commented journalist Owen Jones: “ All of a sudden, the commentariat are swooning over Keir Starmer. He was leading the most unpopular government in recorded history, lacking any coherent vision and best known for trying to freeze grannies and being showered with freebies. Then, suddenly, the Ukraine crisis came along and suddenly he’s apparently Winston Churchill.”

Later on Monday afternoon in the Commons, Starmer continued his praise of the US president. “Sir Keir Starmer has told MPs that US President Donald Trump's commitment to achieving peace in Ukraine is ‘sincere’ “, reported the BBC.

But then the bad news for global deal maker and bridge builder Starmer started to dribble out. Again, quoting the BBC:

“As Sir Keir was speaking in the House of Commons, Trump posted on social media: "Europe... stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the US – probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking?"

He also accused Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky of not wanting peace adding: "America will not put up with it for much longer."

TUESDAY, 4 MARCH

The news soon got worse, far worse, for Starmer.

Overnight on social media, Trump dropped his latest bombshell, in fact a missile aimed straight at Zelenskyy (and, on the rebound, at Starmer and his new career as a global operator.)

As reported in THE FINANCIAL TIMES early on Tuesday, “President Donald Trump has ordered that the US suspend military aid to Ukraine as he seeks to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make concessions in peace talks with Russia.

Ukraine fighting without US weapons, equipment or intelligence was until recently an unthinkable prospect. As it looks set to become reality, a senior Ukrainian intelligence official said that his country would probably run out of US militart supplies‘two or three months’. ”

Some “sincerity.” The type of “peace” Trump has in mind for Ukraine is obvious. It is one that will allow the Russians a free rein to continue their campaign of destruction. It is certainly not a just peace.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to get unfettered US access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals because, in the words of U.S. VP J.D. Vance, “the American people have to get some payback” for the money spent to provide Ukraine with armaments since phase two of the Ukraine war began just over three years ago.

A FEW CONCLUSIONS

The choices facing Zelensjkyy / Stephen Lillie in The Guardian

A few conclusions from this sorry tale:

1) Starmer’s first high-profile outing as a global diplomat and major “player” has been a flop. Trump has played him like a fool and Starmer has achieved nothing of lasting substance from his White House visit last week.

2) Morgan McSweeney should cut out the “PM on a tank” theatrics and instead get his charge, namely Starmer, down to working on issues such as climate justice, domestic and global inequality, racism, and changing our undemocratic voting system, to name just five meaty policy issues. “Team Starmer preps for war”, the 5 March headline in one online news sheet, may win you some votes… but that was also Tony Blair’s view two decades ago.

3) And oh, what about Palestine? While much of the world has been focused on the Ukraine conflict, the Israelis have cut off all medical and food aid to Gaza. Both the US and the UK continue to ship billions of pounds of military hardware to assist Israel’s genocide and it has decided “ceasefire is a continuation of war by all other means.”

4) Starmer and his ilk keep mentioning that they want British “boots on the ground” in Ukraine. A glib remark to suggest in front of the cameras. Does he also want the feet of his own children in those boots?

5) Am I the only who is thinking that the way Trump is trying to get his hands on the much-touted rare earth minerals in Ukraine should remind us of the way the Belgians got access to minerals long ago in what was once called the “Belgian Congo”, how the British Empire gained concessions around the world, and how Yankee imperialism operated in South America for decades?

6) Some commentators, including those on the left, are hailing Trump's intervention in Ukraine as a positive step. HERE is one piece on that theme. We should definitely agree “that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was indisputably provoked by western aggressions.” But we need to face up to the fact that Ukraine is under the whip up two imperialisms: one based in Moscow and the other in Washington. A latter country with nearly 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world cannot be considered a peacemaker.

7) “BE THERE OR BE SQUARE” when Trump pays us a visit.

CHECK THIS OUT

Some good news…

This much-lauded 2024 film made by an Israeli-Palestinian collective won the best documentary feature award at the Oscar awards on Sunday. You can read more about NO OTHER LAND HERE.

The film, which focuses on ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, could not find a distributor in the United States – the home of free speech as JD Vance keeps reminding us.

The Israeli government is trying to block its distribution in that country as well as THIS ARTICLE explains.

+++++++

Edited by Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber: http://theleftlane2024.substack.com/subscribe

You can reach us at: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com

Read all previous columns of THE LEFT LANE ( 66 in total) here

Follow us on THE LEFT LANE Instagram and on THE LEFT LANE Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/leftlanepolitics.bsky.social