And yet, the conflict that is helping him politically also risks undermining the economic strategy his premiership depends on.
So far, Starmer’s handling of the crisis hasn’t been flawless. The U.K. was too slow to send a warship to the Mediterranean, irritating allies including Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Relations with the U.S. have also deteriorated after U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Starmer for his initial refusal to permit U.S. aircraft from flying out of U.K. bases to bomb Iran. In fact, the “special relationship” is now so strained, senior Whitehall officials worry intelligence cooperation could be affected.
But domestically, the war’s political impact has been an undeniable positive for Starmer, who has found himself on the right side of both public and Labour Party opinion.
Voters are wary of being drawn into another Middle East conflict, and they support a prime minister who is willing to stand up to Trump. Meanwhile, many MPs scoff at the idea of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, or any other senior figure for that matter, handling this crisis any better, and say this is no time for more instability.
But while the conflict has shored up Starmer’s short-term political position, Downing Street is increasingly concerned about its economic consequences.
Labour ministers had been hoping voters would begin to notice an improvement in living standards this year, and those hopes are now in doubt: Inflation is expected to remain closer to 3 percent than the Bank of England’s 2 percent target, and interest rates are unlikely to fall as much as previously forecast. Moreover, mortgage rates have already begun to rise again, creating further difficulties for a government that has made the cost-of-living crisis its central political priority.
