Blair or Starmer - Choose Your Villain

For years the British right has enjoyed the convenience of having two very reliable villains. Tony Blair is the war criminal who lied Britain into Iraq and should apparently never again be trusted with anything more dangerous than a paperclip. Keir Starmer, meanwhile, is widely described as the most hated Prime Minister in history, presiding over national decline at a speed that suggests the country may sink into the sea before teatime.

Normally this arrangement works perfectly well. Blair represents the reckless interventionism of the past. Starmer represents the allegedly hopeless leadership of the present. The script is simple and everyone knows which lines to deliver.

Unfortunately the current argument about Iran has rather carelessly put the two men on opposite sides of the same question. Blair has emerged to say that Britain should have been more robust in backing Trump’s action and showing solidarity with Washington, a view shared by most on the right of British politics. Starmer has taken a more cautious line, supporting allies but avoiding the sort of enthusiastic war talk that tends to age badly once the shooting starts.

This leaves the right with a small but awkward choice. If they want Britain loudly backing Trump’s war, then they find themselves agreeing with Tony Blair, the man they normally introduce as a war criminal whenever Iraq is mentioned. If they want restraint and caution, then they are suddenly rather close to Keir Starmer, the supposedly disastrous Prime Minister they spend most of their time denouncing.

So they must now decide whether to support Blair or support Starmer. One involves backing the man they still blame for Iraq. The other involves admitting that the most hated Prime Minister in living memory might have the steadier instinct when someone in Washington starts reaching for the missiles.

It is not an easy dilemma if your political worldview depends on both men being wrong about everything at all times. The simplest solution will probably be to ignore the contradiction entirely and continue shouting at both of them anyway. Consistency has never been the strong suit of political commentary.