Labour’s efforts to brand critics of its stance on Iran as warmongers is the apex of cynicism

Tony Blair’s former speech writer, the journalist and academic used to say that the perfect speech is when “you can’t see the scaffolding”.

He meant – one suspects thinking of the good ones he penned – when you can’t see every focus group appeal line, the elephant on the room dodge, the botch welding of two seemingly contradictory positions into one. When you can’t hear the dog whistle, the over blown clarion call, or the deliberately obfuscating wording to ensure you don’t say the thing you can’t say out loud. The scaffolding.

I have long applied this to political communications. When it’s clumsy but trying to be clever, you can ‘see the scaffolding.’

While the US and Israel turn Iranian regime buildings, and – let’s not ignore – a school to rubble, Labour, and the Greens have rapidly built towers of visible scaffolding having spotted an opportunity to try and pick at, and pick off the Conservative position on the Iran war.

Let’s be clear. The foundations for this scaffolding were laid some time ago. Donald Trump is may not now be as popular in America but here, he’s down right unpopular. Within the British public the only Western leader liked less is Netanyahu. Then add a cementing layer of the result of the Gorton and Denton by-election. Labour know that being seen to side with Trump is toxic for them, being seen to side with the Palestinian cause is better and war, especially in the middle east, after the second Iraq war is kryptonite.

Given Starmer is no superman, and was the most unpopular PM of modern times before Trump issued a single pilot into the skies these domestic electoral concerns have become mainstays of the scaffolding erected hastily in recent days.

Labours Comms, and it is transparently co-ordinated, has looked at Reform’s biggest weakness – something that comes out of many focus groups and polling –  the perception that they are too close to Trump, use a Trump playbook, and are trying to emulate the Trump  election success of 2024. Miriam Cates argues this morning on ConHome that endless polling is getting in the way of political principle. Here I’d argue is a case study.

Labour also know, and frankly I’d be shocked by a country that didn’t, that most of the public don’t ‘like’ war. Who would? In the four years I’ve monitored both the public and not so public evidence of the realities of war in Ukraine it is ugly brutal and dehumanising.

Nobody sane wants or likes war, and those that do seldom fight them.

Yet they happen all the same, presenting such countries with stark and difficult choices.

The facts are that a third of the US fleet arrived weeks ago in the Gulf. Trump repeatedly threatened – not least when the Iranian regime was murdering thirty thousand of its own citizens for protesting– that he could resort to bombing Iran. No idle threat since a year ago he did. Netanyahu has had a forty year desire to take the Islamic Republic out of the middle east equation for good. We know that the US requested the potential use of the base at Diego Garcia that the Prime Minister is still wedded to paying billion to give away, and RAF Fairford.

Since a GCSE student in these circumstances could divine that an attack on Iran was very possible, and many officials could divine how Iran, and Iranian proxies might respond, based on track record and perceived enemies, it seems very odd that Starmer ended up vacillating, lacking foresight and damaging diplomatic relations far beyond the ‘special relationship’ and why HMS Dragon has only just left port for the Med, while Macron visits a French vessel already in the area.

A weakened and unpopular Prime Minister before was open to valid criticism of his decision not to allow the use of our bases and to have been flatfooted in the face of something that was happening whether he decided to be ‘involved’ or not. Note Iran does not reward those who are ‘not involved’ it shoots at them anyway. Iran backed Hezbollah – most likely – fired on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. British sovereign territory. With our service personnel on the site.

The Conservative position was that Government’s first role is to defend its people. Kemi Badenoch suggested since the war was happening regardless of Britian’s position the bases should be used to allow targeted strikes on “the archers not just the arrows”. In the context of the strike on Akrotiri this meant strikes on Hezbollah launching areas, and stockpiles in southern Lebanon.

Quite clearly a narrative has been built in Labour, from top to bottom, and across its supporters and allies to spread a message. A very distorted version of the truth.

This is a cocktail of their narrative, from numerous sources, freely available for others to find but goes something like this:

‘Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage are Trump’s poodles, two war mongers who back bombing women and children, and support illegal wars in a bid to try and be relevant. Thank God Starmer is in charge’

The fact that within days the Government were actually doing, and still are, almost exactly what the Conservatives first proposed is not to be mentioned. Verboten. The only difference is that Labour are letting others do our defending for us.

Now it is true, that still drunk on the so called Cold War peace dividend almost every party in every European country spent decades shrinking defence spending because the world was a safer, rules-based place and America would always step in, but the world has changed and those choices look poor for all parties. It is the Conservatives who have suggested a way to fix it.

It’s also worth remembering that whilst being accused of ‘slashing defence’ the Conservatives still ensured the UK stepped up to help Ukraine as a nation when threatened with total eradication by Vladimir Putin. I didn’t get that from CCHQ, I’ve heard it hundreds of times – from Ukrainians.

So, you can see the scaffolding of this Labour narrative from space.

According to one shadow Cabinet member “Labours comms plan seems to be make out the right are recklessly gung-ho, or dangerous, even war mongering freaks, who appal the public but still slavishly support Trump’s illegal war! It’s cynical rubbish”. I would go further and say Labour are simultaneously draping themselves in a mantle of being ‘sensibly cautious, thoughtful custodians of common sense’ who claim, and I’d bet will again at PMQs today, that politics should be left at the door and opposition should just respectfully agree. And how awful that they don’t.’

It’s an argument.

It’s just not a very good one when all the scaffolding tells you there is politics literally dripping from their position. We should all deplore real anti-Muslim hostility – though whether we need a Tsar or a definition for it is moot at best – but confronting Islamism would seem long overdue. It’s an odd thing to see parts of the left hate Trump and Israel so much they’ll put in a good word for the murderous mullahs of Tehran. Even cardboard cut out ones.

Badenoch isn’t itching to ‘do war’. She’s advocating defending British interests, and if you think Starmer hasn’t damaged those in the long term, even as John Redwood argues this morning, before all this started, then you are living in an isolationist virtue bubble that has no basis in reality or realpolitik.

When this very dangerous and difficult situation is over, and indeed we don’t know how and with what result – part of Trump’s real problem here – the ramifications of our own Government’s early position to sit atop a global fence and watch which way to jump will become very apparent.

You can book mark that.