Best Of

Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.

By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.

The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further

You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders

I wonder why ?

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

In an ideal world that would happen , sadly there are some in Europe who maintain the delusion that if they try and maintain good relations with Trump he won’t throw Ukraine under a bus or throw further as the case maybe now .

Over and above that, and whatever misgivings they might have, most European governments are likely not displeased to see the US and Israel sticking it to Iran.

It’s been building up for decades now, was always going to happen one day. Plenty of neutrals are careful what they say out loud, but the only people upset appear to be Russia and China.

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.

Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.

Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.

By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.

The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further

TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.

It's a question of attitude.

Offensive bombing is done by people like Hesgeth: "Yeah, take that you camel jockeys!"

Defensive bombing is done by people like Starmer: "Terribly sorry old chap, but you've forced us to do this."

It's really not complicated.
See Russia vs Ukraine.

You can argue about who falls in which category on occasion, but the difference between offence and defence is a very clear one indeed.

Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.

He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.

My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.

It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.

Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.

Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.

AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.

Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.