Blair ‘deserves’ knighthood despite protest, says Starmer

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has defended the decision to grant former prime minister Tony Blair a knighthood.

This morning a petition calling for the removal of Mr Blair’s honour surpassed 550,000 signatures.

Sir Keir rejected claims that the knighthood was a “thorny” issue, but said he respected “that people have different views” on the topic.

“I understand there are strong views on the Iraq war, there were back at the time and there still are,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme earlier today.

“But that does not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”

The petition will not be debated by MPs as royal honours are a matter for the monarch, not parliament. 

The petition is also hosted on the independent website change.org, not the Government website where parliamentary petitions that exceed 100,000 signatures are usually considered for debate in the Commons.

The campaign page argues that “Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society. He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives and servicement[sic] in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.”

On this basis, the petitioners argue that Mr Blair’s appointment as a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry, must be removed.

According to YouGov figures 97% of British adults have heard of the former prime minister who served in the top job from 1997 to 2007, and 57% of them dislike him.

Blair is the only Labour leader in the party’s 100-year history to win three consecutive General Elections.

Although the only living former Labour leader to have led the party to a General Election victory, Blair’s legacy remains controversial – thanks, in part, to his decision to invade Iraq in 2003.