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:
A man of (non-military) action
Kuenssberg showed Starmer the following video:
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:
Starmer was already attracting criticism beforehand:
And the embarrassment is spreading:
Arms for the rich
Starmer managed to slip another U-turn into his interview – this time on arming Saudi Arabia:
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”:
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