By J.C.
BARONESS Warsi’s resignation this morning did not come as a great surprise. The relationship between the Foreign Office minister (who attended cabinet) and the top of her Conservative Party had been deteriorating for years.
It was not always that way. Lady Warsi was a supporter of David Cameron’s leadership bid in 2005. On winning, he rewarded her with the vice-chairmanship of the party, then a seat in the shadow cabinet and, after the 2010 election, the party chairmanship. A northern, Muslim woman, she embodied his attempts to freshen his party’s image and reach out to groups that had shunned it in the past. But she came under fire from right-wing backbenchers and the party in the media (most notably Tim Montgomerie, now at The Times), who claimed that she was ineffectual. Newspaper stories about her expenses and allegations of conflicts of interest did not help matters. Mr Cameron reportedly came under sustained pressure to defenestrate her in last month’s reshuffle. Her resignation has been greeted by jets of bile from anonymous backbenchers.
But Lady Warsi’s departure is about more than just squabbles in the Conservative Party. Doubtless, these had not left her well-disposed to the prime minister, but there is nothing to suggest that her immediate reasons for resigning were other than those given in her letter: “our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain’s national interest and will have a long term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically.” She reiterated these points in an interview with Mehdi Hasan of the Huffington Post.
Though relatively little of the reaction to Lady Warsi’s decision has concerned this aspect, it is significant. The language—and subject—recall the years of Tony Blair’s leadership, and specifically his role in the Iraq War and his outspoken support for Israel in its 2006 war with Lebanon. Not since that era has British politics been so divided over global affairs (the EU being more a domestic concern than a foreign one, and differences between the two main parties over Syria last year having been more marginal than many realise).
On one side stand the Liberal Democrats and most of the Labour Party. Both parties’ leading figures have used much starker language than the prime minister to describe Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza strip. Nick Clegg calls it “a deliberately disproportionate form of collective punishment.” Ed Miliband termed it “wrong” and “indefensible”—and criticised David Cameron for what the Labour leader called his “silence on the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians caused by Israel’s military action.”
His concerns are shared by some in the Conservative Party. On July 31st Margot James, a high-flying MP with none of the resentment towards Mr Cameron attributed to Lady Warsi, called for the government to “rethink” its stance on Israel’s actions, which she described as disproportionate. More Tory MPs than is widely noted share her concerns (some have received many letters to this effect from constituents) and are uncomfortable with the prime minister’s proximity to Benjamin Netanyahu—and their number appears to be growing. Opinion polling suggests that the public tilts in this direction, too. Like her or not, Lady Warsi speaks for many.
On the other side the crowd of politicians is smaller: some Labour MPs (most notably, Louise Ellman) and the top of the Conservative Party. David Cameron, George Osborne and Philip Hammond, William Hague’s hawkish successor as foreign secretary, stand out particularly for their reluctance to condemn Israel. Speaking to Mr Netanyahu by phone on July 21st, Mr Cameron emphasised its right to take proportionate measures to defend itself. Unlike the Labour and Lib Dem front benches, neither he nor any of his senior colleagues has suggested that Israel’s actions are disproportionate. And he has dug in to this position; on Sunday despatching Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, to reiterate it. The government should endeavour “not to get involved in being ultra-critical of one side or the other,” Mr Grayling told Sky News.
The echoes of the mid-2000s contain a warning for Mr Cameron. Without getting into the merits or demerits of Mr Cameron’s or Mr Blair’s stances on Israel (though The Economist’s leader this week argues that Israel should heed some of what its critics are saying), in both cases these have served to alienate natural allies. In 2006 Mr Blair’s stark support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon left many “Blairites” cold, accelerating his hand-over to Gordon Brown (as Mr Blair himself later admitted).
In Mr Cameron’s case, the knock-on effect may be felt next year. Middle-class Muslims in crucial Midlands and outer London marginals, who might otherwise have voted Tory, may stay at home or vote Lib Dem or Labour. And if he wins the election, the prime minister will have to set about renegotiating and championing Britain’s membership of the EU (as he has pledged to). Only a minority of his MPs are likely to whole-heartedly support this effort. That group substantially overlaps with the group of Tory MPs most unsettled by the government’s position on the latest conflict (Ms James being a case in point). So far, the damage does not look permanent. But if hostilities rumble on, and Mr Cameron digs in further, that will change.
