Starmer v Starmer: why is the former human rights lawyer so cautious about defending human rights? – from The Audio Long Read
When Keir Starmer entered Downing Street, a palpable sense of expectation settled over the corridors of power, particularly among those who remembered his formidable career as a human rights lawyer. Here was a man who had built his reputation on the bedrock of international law, a former Director of Public Prosecutions who spoke with conviction about the rules-based order.Yet, as his first year in office draws to a close, a curious and troubling paradox has emerged: the prime minister’s record on defending the very principles he once championed is not just mixed, but marked by a caution that borders on strategic retreat. This isn't merely a policy shift; it's a profound character study in the compromises of governance, reminiscent of historical figures who entered office with idealism only to be tempered by the harsh realities of statecraft.The analysis must begin with the context of his inheritance—a United Kingdom grappling with a diminished global standing, a legacy of contentious legislation like the Rwanda asylum plan that tested the boundaries of domestic and international law, and a public weary of perpetual political drama. Supporters within the Labour party and the human rights community anticipated a swift, unambiguous restoration of Britain's moral leadership, a clear break from the previous administration's often adversarial stance towards the European Court of Human Rights and international conventions.Instead, we have witnessed a series of calibrated, often hesitant, moves. On one hand, there has been a rhetorical recommitment to multilateral institutions and the Geneva Conventions, a welcome change in tone that has been noted by diplomats.On the other, concrete actions have been sparse and frequently reactive. The government's positioning on ongoing international conflicts has been meticulously worded to avoid diplomatic offence, prioritising strategic alliances over unequivocal condemnations of potential war crimes.This approach draws a direct parallel to the dilemmas faced by postwar statesmen who balanced ethical imperatives against Cold War pragmatism. Expert commentary from constitutional scholars points to the immense pressure of a precarious economic situation and a thin parliamentary majority, forces that inevitably push any leader toward a more realpolitik calculus.Furthermore, the shadow of the Brexit realignment continues to loom large, with the government navigating a complex redefinition of the UK's role in the world, where trade and security partnerships can sometimes appear to conflict with human rights agendas. The consequences of this caution are multifaceted.Domestically, it risks disillusioning the progressive base that propelled Labour to victory, creating an opening for more vocal critics on the left. Internationally, it sends a signal of uncertainty to both allies and adversaries about the UK's willingness to act as a consistent champion of the international legal framework.
#featured
#Keir Starmer
#Labour Party
#international law
#human rights
#UK politics
#government policy
#legal commitment
