Starmers

May 10 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s job was hanging in the balance Sunday in the aftermath of the worst local council election results for his Labor Party in its long history, analysts said.

Political rivals were circling around the prime minister after the ruling party’s support on councils in England and in devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales collapsed in Thursday’s voting, leave the right-wing Reform UK and left-wing Green Party as the biggest electoral winners.

In what was termed a “total bloodbath,” a “calamity” and a “wipe-out,” Labor was voted out of power in 40 local councils, losing about 1,500 councilors along the way, with the vast majority of the seats being seized by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Starmer’s party also lost the Welsh Senedd to Plaid Cymru, surrendering its control of the body for the first time since the Welsh parliament was created in 1999.

The results came during what is essentially the mid-point of the Starmer government’s five-year term following Labor’s lopsided victory over the Conservative Party in 2024, and he vowed on Friday that he would not stand aside.

Labor, he said, was elected to meet the challenges faced by everyday Britons “and I’m not going to walk away from those challenges and plunge the country into chaos.

“I led our party to that victory, that is a five-year mandate to change the country. It was a five-year term I was elected to do, I intend to see that through.”

But the scale of last week’s losses have prompted calls for the prime minister’s resignation. As of Sunday, more than 40 Labor members of Parliament have publicly called on him stand aside.

“It is clear that Keir has fought his last election as Labor leader and, deep down, he will know it,” Labor MP Richard Burgon said in a statement. “The party should now work towards a timetable for an orderly transition to a new leader by the end of this year.”

“When you’re the leader, the buck stops with you,” Labor MP David Baines told the BBC. “There’s no doubt his popularity has plummeted and we’ve heard it on the doorstep.”

Starmer’s main party rivals spent Sunday voicing warnings that he rethink his determination to hang on to power ahead of what will likely be a “make-or-break” speech on Monday in which the prime minister is expected to outline sweeping changes to his government’s direction.

Angela Rayner, Starmer’s former deputy prime minister, issued what amounted to an ultimatum that he avoid mere “policy tweaks” and instead implement a sharp progressive turn to win back voters who are deserting Labor for the Green Party.

“The prime minister must now meet the moment and set out the change our country needs,” she said. “Change our economic agenda to prioritize making people better off, change how we run our party so that all voices are listened to, and change how we do politics.

“Labor exists to make working people better off. That is not happening fast enough, and it needs to change — now.”

Meanwhile, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has told Starmer he is preparing to make a bid for the top job should the prime minister resign or be forced from office, The Telegraph reported Sunday.

The favorite candidate of the “soft left,” Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, has been blocked by Labor’s National Executive Committee from standing as a parliamentary candidate in a move engineered by Starmer in January.

But Rayner on Sunday called for Starmer to lift Burnham’s ban in the greater interests of the party and the country.

In March 2003, a million people took to the streets of London to oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq. Seeing straight through the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, protesters warned the British government in no uncertain terms: This action would trigger a spiral of misery, hatred and death.

More than 20 years on, most people now recognise the Iraq war for what it was: a catastrophic mistake that fuelled a string of subsequent conflicts and instability. The United Kingdom had followed the United States into an illegal war – and more than a million Iraqi men, women and children paid the price.

Unfortunately, not everybody has learned the lessons from the past. It has been almost a month since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. More than 1,400 Iranians and more than 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed.

In seeking to justify the bombing, US President Donald Trump spoke of the need to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime”, whose “menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world”. He said the goal was to make sure Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon”. Sound familiar?

The first casualty of war is the truth, so let us get the facts straight: These are lies that have been peddled to justify an illegal and unprovoked war. As the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter last week, Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and that it was “clear that [the US] started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.

There is only one nuclear-armed state in the Middle East: Israel. Next month’s UN Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would have been the perfect place to call for an end to the nuclear arms race. A diplomatic solution was possible, but the US and Israel chose war instead. In doing so, they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world. So, too, have those nations that have decided to lend support to their war of aggression.

Shortly after the attacks on Iran began, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave the US permission to use British military bases for strikes on Iranian missile sites. Last week, his government agreed to let the US use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz.

The UK could have followed in the footsteps of Spain and said, “No way, absolutely not. We will not be involved in this illegal war in any way whatsoever.” Instead, it has dragged itself into another catastrophic conflict.

Astonishingly, the prime minister still maintains that the British government is not involved – a line that has been regurgitated by many across our media. He says the UK is allowing its sites to be used only for “defensive” strikes. What nonsense.

The reality is, if a bomber takes off from Royal Air Force base Fairford and bombs targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression. If civilians die, will their families stop mourning when they are told that they were bombed for “defensive purposes”? No matter how Starmer dresses it up, he cannot change the truth: The UK is directly involved in this war.

Mark my words: This is a historic mistake that jeopardises the safety of us all. That’s why, earlier this month, I tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would require parliamentary approval for any British involvement in military action. That includes the use of British bases by other nations.

So far, the prime minister has refused to pass this legislation. With no debate, no discussion and no vote, he is dragging Britain into another disastrous illegal war.

Just like with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, those of us who oppose the war on Iran are accused of giving succour to authoritarian regimes and leaders. Whatever one thinks of the governments of various places, there is no basis in law for an attack to bring about regime change. There is no basis in history that bombing from the sky would bring about human rights either.

Trump couldn’t care less about people’s human rights. Whether it’s in Iran, Venezuela or Cuba, he is interested in one thing and one thing only: seizing resources and political control around the world.

If the UK cares about international law, it would be standing up to Trump, not bending over backwards to appease him.

The story of US-led foreign interventions is a story of chaos, instability and misery. How many more of these catastrophic failures do we need before we learn the lesson? And what will it take for the UK to finally defend a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty and peace?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.