Or perhaps more accurately, the question would be ‘is there foreign involvement in the plot to oust Keir Starmer?’
“We don’t need Keir Starmer. I pray for the British people that they get different leadership”…’ Who said that? I’ll tell you shortly.
But clearly, there are multiple interests that want Starmer out of office, and it has all been coming to a head in recent days.
But might there be more going on than meets the eye?
For the record, I’m not any big fan of Starmer or of this current government. But then I haven’t been a fan of any British Prime Minister or government for a very long time: and Starmer’s is by no means the worst.
Let’s establish a couple of points.
Firstly, the media has been relentless in its negative coverage of Kier Starmer for a long time. And now it is clearly trying to contribute to his removal from office.
It’s been evident for some time that the majority of the media establishment wants Nigel Farage as Prime Minister. Whether that aligns with the majority of the population’s wishes remains to be seen.
But it’s certainly being painted as being where the momentum is – whether that momentum is real or manufactured.
But secondly, and more interesting, it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the “country” massively turning on Starmer just happens to follow his refusal to take Britain into the Iran conflict, his recognition – performative though it might’ve been – of a Palestinian state, and the deterioration of his relationship with Netanyahu and the Israeli government.
Starmer has also been highly critical of Israel’s campaign in Lebanon: which certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed in Tel-Aviv.
Just weeks ago, as covered here, the PM was being verbally assaulted by a Jewish crowd in Golders Green with shouts of “traitor!” and over-the-top signs reading ‘Kier Starmer, Jew Harmer‘.
Even that all seemed like a choreographed performance more than anything else: part of a scripted sequence of events.
Is everything happening now in Westminster completely unrelated?
Certainly, the way the Labour leadership’s current crisis is being portrayed is as a result of very poor local election results for the party. And that’s certainly a part of it.
But even this diminishment of popular support could be argued to have been largely influenced by the constant stream of highly negative media coverage of Starmer and his government for two years.
Again, I’ve not been a supporter of Kier Starmer or his government generally speaking: I’m making these observations from a neutral position.
‘The most unpopular leader in British history‘? Really? That’s not a bit of an exaggeration? Or is this all a concerted campaign being sustained by a primarily right-leaning media establishment?
And the foreign influence within that equation shouldn’t be underestimated.
The foreign policy element has always been central. Britain’s right-wing media and overall establishment has generally remained firmly pro-Israel, even in light of the events of the last few years.
Witness this statement from the current Conservative Party leader, in response to Starmer’s government suspending arms licenses to Israel: ‘Labour’s decision to suspend 30 export licences to Israel not only panders to the mob, but undermines the UK’s national interests, upsetting allies like the US and putting at risk our critical defence and intelligence relationship with Israel…’
She added, ‘When I was Business and Trade Secretary, I made a decision to maintain all existing licences for arms exports to Israel…’
Hell, the projected foreign policy trajectory – particularly in regard to a certain country in the Middle East – was the very reason for the mass media campaign against Jeremy Corbyn‘s leadership of the party: a campaign largely driven by Israeli interests (this is a good read on that subject: and how Israeli diplomat Shai Masot boasted about how to “take down” British MPs that were not “solid on Israel”, which Labour at the time deemed a “national security issue”).
Indeed, that was the very ‘crisis’ that eventually led to Kier Starmer becoming leader.
Having previously sung from Israel’s hymn sheet and – according to the prevailing narrative – having purged the party of its perceived antisemitism problem, is Starmer himself now being targeted?
And would this constitute supreme irony?
Much has been made lately of the weakened relationship between Starmer and the Trump administration in the US. Not as much focus has been on Starmer’s relationship with the Israeli government.
An April 16th article in Irish Times explored the collapse of the relationship between Netanyahu’s government and Downing Street, noting: ‘Netanyahu no longer pursues friendship with Starmer. Instead, he says Starmer is “on the wrong side of humanity” for criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza and that his decision to recognise the state of Palestine was “absurd”…’
It also highlights comments from the Likud party’s minister for diaspora affairs, Amichai Chikli, who stated ‘that without a change in leadership, “there is no future” for Britain…’
Chikli, who incidentally was the man who brought ‘Tommy Robinson’ over to Israel for his hilariously bad propaganda tour last year, continued, saying ‘….”I’m sorry for the British people. We don’t need Keir Starmer. I pray for the British people that they get different leadership“…’
Well, it looks like the Likud’s diaspora man is now having his prayer answered.
While some of these MPs apparently turning against Starmer are obviously doing so for mixed reasons (loss of confidence after the local elections, personal ambition and self-interest, etc), it’s hard to not see the likelihood of a foreign-influenced push taking place in parallel.
Let’s talk about Wes Streeting, Starmer’s Health Secretary: who is being touted to mount a leadership challenge.
A Declassified UK article from 2024 illustrates how Streeting has received thousands in funding from Israel lobbyists, as have members of his staff.
Some of this was from Trevor Chinn, a mogul who was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour for service to the State of Israel in November 2024, and who’s father ran the Jewish National Fund, which supports illegal settlement building.
He was also the first MP in Starmer’s administration to visit Israel. Jewish and Israeli organisations have been praising Streeting for many years as being a particularly reliable pro-Israel MP.
Unlike Starmer, who has sanctioned members of the Israeli Cabinet, Streeting trivialised South Africa’s case against Israel’s Gaza campaign at the International Court of Justice as “a distraction“.
Yes, Streeting has subsequently condemned the campaign in Gaza and talked about the Israeli state’s ‘pariah status’: though this was primarily brought to light in his private communications with Peter Mandelson.
And how much of his u-turning on the Gaza issue was driven by PR concerns and fears about losing his seat in elections?
The point is, if someone is to replace Kier Starmer, Wes Streeting would probably be the Israeli government’s ideal choice.
Does any of it actually matter?
After all, the majority of Starmer’s Cabinet has taken money from Israeli lobbyists, as highlighted here. This includes Starmer himself, Angela Rayner, David Lammy and others.
And Starmer himself has broadly been a staunch Israeli ally. It was only when blind support for the Israeli government became completely untenable – when children’s bodies were literally piling up in Gazan streets – that he changed his position.
As I observed at the time, this backing away from Israel’s actions – conducted in unison with other leaders, particularly in France and Canada – was arguably more driven by fear of complicity than moral outrage.
Nevertheless, Starmer has made himself a disliked figure both in the Israeli government and in much of Britain’s Jewish community. As well as in the current United States leadership.
His unpopularity with the right-wing media is by the by: every Labour leader other than Tony Blair has been largely opposed by the media establishment. Both Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband were horrendously treated in the media: as was Corbyn.
It’s the possible foreign motivation to remove him that is most interesting. Because it’s the one angle they’ll never discuss in the mainstream media.
There’s also of course a perverseness to all of this. Starmer was the Israeli lobbyists’ darling: the pro-Israel figure who could be relied on to purge the party, make antisemitism the front-and-centre issue, and to dispose of that dastardly supervillain Jeremy Corbyn.
He did all of that. And he supported the slaughter in Gaza for as long as he feasibly could. His government also assisted probable Israeli war crimes with surveillance and with logistical support.
Instead of being grateful, as soon as he started to break from the programme even a little bit (in light of what was being widely called a genocide), they immediately denounced and condemned him. This is a man who, in just a few years, went from being the knight in shining armour in the war against Israel’s left-wing critics to “Keir Starmer, Jew Harmer“.
It’s quite a journey.
Starmer learnt an important lesson, which I previously illustrated here in an older article: that nothing less than total obedience to the Golden Calf is considered acceptable.
In that article, I was primarily looking at the BBC‘s awkward balancing act in the wake of its condemnation by Israel and much of the British press. But whether it’s the BBC or the Prime Minister, the rules are the same.
No amount of support or ‘friendship’ is enough: unless it is total and unwavering.
Can I say for certain that Israel is involved in the campaign to oust the British Prime Minister? No.
It is by no means a stretch though. Again, the Shai Masot affair, as referenced earlier, demonstrated Israeli interference in British politics and its disdain for British politicians.
By the way, as reported May 14th there’s currently an investigation in France concerning Israeli interference over there, and ‘whether an obscure Israeli company called BlackCore played a role in a foreign interference campaign targeting the hard-left party La France Insoumise ahead of local elections held in March…’
In terms of the current Labour crisis, what’s most likely is that shared interests, both foreign and domestic, are coming together.
At the same time as this latest challenge to the Prime Minister was unfolding, Pete Hegseth was literally threatening ‘consequences’ to NATO leaders for their ‘betrayal’ in not supporting the US/Israeli war in Iran. He didn’t name Starmer or the UK: but, given what’s happening right now, one could read between the lines if one were so inclined.
By the way, none of this is to downplay whatever general dissatisfaction there is with Starmer and his government in Britain: but there are always unpopular Prime Ministers and governments. I’ve never seen this extreme, exaggerated level of disapproval and discord being sustained in the media discourse.
To me, it’s suspicious.
But, what happens next?
Does Starmer get ousted? Does he manage to hold on for a few years? Will the media just spend the next few years continually attacking him regardless?
Will a change of Labour leadership make any difference to anything whatsoever?
Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is again being discussed as a likely challenger. Curiously enough, it’s a Jewish MP who stepped aside in Makerfield in the north west to make way for Burnham to begin maneuvering – but that’s probably just a coincidence.
Is all of this simply paving the way for Nigel Farage and Reform UK? Is that the long term plan?
It’s getting harder and harder to even care anymore. But what a shit-show.
