Will Keir Starmer’s decision to recognise Palestine shore up his waning popularity?

Keir Starmer’s decision that the UK will recognise Palestinian statehood is a bold move. The prime minister must often feel he can’t win; some of the 130 Labour backbenchers clamouring for recognition are unhappy he has set conditions for Israel’s actions, which implies he might not go ahead with the move. Sarah Champion, chair of the international development select committee, is “troubled” by the conditions.

Predictably, the Conservatives and Reform UK are sniping from the sidelines. They complain Starmer is playing “gesture politics”, saying his initiative is all about party management as he again caves in to his own MPs. But it is the opposition parties who are playing silly political games.

Starmer has a proven track record of opposing gesture politics, preferring a lawyerly, sometimes painstaking approach of looking at a problem from all sides before declaring a plan to resolve it.

In the national interest, rival parties and restive Labour MPs should now get behind Starmer’s serious attempt to bring peace to the Middle East by reviving a two-state solution on life support. It might not work. Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas want different one-state solutions – without the existence of Palestine and Israel, respectively.

But Starmer’s plan is worth a try. It might spur Donald Trump into putting more pressure on Israel, as Starmer did successfully on Gaza when they met in Scotland on Monday.

It is hard to imagine the US president, who boasted at Turnberry he had already stopped “six wars” and wants to win the Nobel peace prize, getting behind a Starmer or European blueprint agreed by the UK, France and Germany. The latter does not recognise Palestine yet, but other nations, including Canada and Australia, may change their policy to back the French president Emmanuel Macron’s move at the UN General Assembly in September.

Critics complain that Starmer did not impose any specific conditions on Hamas, only Israel. But his allies insist all the remaining Israeli hostages must be released, and that Hamas could not be involved in any talks on a two-state solution. However, the absence of a plan to transition away from Hamas rule in Gaza will have to be addressed.

The PM always said he would play the Palestinian card at a time of maximum benefit; it was a question of “when, not if.” The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza made it a case of “if not now, when?”

Starmer allies tell me he has been working on his plan for months. Arguably, he could have moved earlier. A third of the cabinet were pressing him to, including David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Senior UK diplomats are privately frustrated by Starmer’s approach: “He is too cautious,” one told me.

Sometimes, Starmer’s closest allies have viewed the Middle East as part of his battle against the “pro-Palestinian left” symbolised by Jeremy Corbyn. That might have been the right approach in the aftermath of the horrific 7 October attacks, but not now; Israel’s unspeakable actions in Gaza have changed everything.

The PM was also becoming out of step with public opinion. According to YouGov, 45 per cent of people say the government should recognise Palestine as an independent state, while only 14 per cent disagree, with 41 per cent undecided.

The figures mask big differences: about two-thirds of Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat supporters back recognition, but only 32 per cent of Tory and 15 per cent of Reform voters do.

The strongest support for a Palestinian state is among 18- to 24-year-olds, at 61 per cent. The issue poses a real threat to Labour’s prospects at the next general election. As well as adding to the four seats won by “Gaza independents” last year, candidates running for Corbyn’s new socialist party on a pro-Palestinian ticket could split the left-of-centre vote and allow Reform or the Tories to win marginal seats from Labour.

In theory, Starmer’s move should limit the electoral damage to his party, but some Labour MPs worry privately that it might have already been done. The Corbyn party will not give the PM an ounce of credit; it suits them to portray him – wrongly – as an Israeli stooge who is complicit in the suffering in Gaza.

The lesson for Starmer: he cannot continually be behind the curve of the mainstream of his party. He was in that position on the winter fuel allowance, disability benefit cuts and Palestine, and so had to change his policy on all three. It made him look weak; such perceptions are very difficult to shift once they take hold in the public’s mind. The vacuum where there should be a narrative about where Starmer wants to take the country has been filled by the image of a PM who looks like he is being pushed around by his party.

Any leader needs to take their party with them. True, they and their troops won’t always agree. But a leader cannot perpetually define themselves against their own party, and Starmer is in danger of running out of road with his MPs. He will need to work with them if he is to mount a political recovery.