bilateral
TopicsAbout← Feed
BySRSam Reyes·CMCal Morrow·EQEliza Quinn·DPDana Park
BREAKINGApril 25, 2026

Starmer plans new powers to ban state-backed terror groups

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to introduce legislation within weeks to ban state-backed organisations such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), following a series of antisemitic arson attacks targeting Jewish community buildings and ambulances across the UK. The announcement was made during Starmer's visit to Kenton United Synagogue in north London, one of the locations targeted in last week's attacks. The government acknowledged existing 'gaps in the legislation' that make proscribing state-backed groups more difficult than banning conventional terrorist organisations.

XLinkedInFacebookThreadsWhatsAppReddit
⚡The liberal argument represents the dominant position. A significant liberal faction disagrees — see The Divide below.

Should governments be able to ban organizations based on state backing alone, or does that standard risk catching opposition groups that rival powers want silenced? Starmer is about to find out where that line gets drawn.

Not familiar with this story? Get context →
Delay was political, not legal
Conservative
Starmer made this promise in 2023 as opposition leader — his team knew exactly what legal framework they would inherit. The US designated the IRGC in 2019, Canada and Sweden followed in 2022, and Britain's own security services were publicly warning of Iranian assassination plots on British soil in 2022 and 2023. At what point was a newly elected government supposed to notice there was a problem? The honest answer is day one.
Liberal
You're treating 'knew the promise' and 'knew the solution' as the same thing — they aren't. Canada and Sweden operated under different national legal architectures; their designations don't map onto the UK's Terrorism Act 2000, which was written specifically for non-state actors. Applying it to a formal branch of a sovereign government creates legal exposure that could unravel in the High Court, and a ban that collapses under judicial scrutiny is worse than no ban at all.
Conservative
The 'we needed to study the legal gap' argument would carry more weight if the review had begun in July 2024, when Labour took office. The fact that it appears to have been accelerated by burning ambulances rather than proactive governance is something your own position acknowledges as a 'real failure of political urgency.'
Liberal
Conceded — the urgency should have come sooner. But 'should have moved faster' and 'was simply choosing not to act' are different accusations, and the legislation being announced now is primary legislation, not a ministerial order that could have been signed on day one.
Arson attacks as policy catalyst
Conservative
Four Jewish community ambulances were destroyed in a single arson attack on March 23rd, with gas canisters exploding inside, nearly two years after Starmer pledged to proscribe the IRGC. The announcement came at Kenton United Synagogue — a building that was itself targeted. When a government's legislative timeline is set by the arsonist rather than by its own programme, that is not governance. That is crisis management dressed as policy.
Liberal
The attacks are not evidence the ban was delayed — they're evidence the ban is needed, which is exactly what the government is now doing. Kenton United Synagogue was chosen as the announcement venue to signal precisely that commitment to that community. Four men stand charged at the Old Bailey; the criminal justice system is functioning. The question isn't whether this was reactive — it's whether the legislation arriving now will be durable.
Conservative
Saying 'the criminal justice system is functioning' is a deflection — the charges are for criminal damage, not terrorism offences, which is the exact enforcement gap that proscription closes. That gap existed before March 23rd.
Liberal
That's actually the strongest argument for getting the definition right rather than fast — proscription needs to be the tool that makes future prosecutions stick, not a symbolic gesture that IRGC lawyers dismantle before it reaches a courtroom.
Allied precedents as binding comparison
Conservative
Three of Britain's closest democratic allies drew this line years ago. When the argument is that UK law faces a categorical problem the US, Canada, and Sweden somehow didn't, you're implying Britain's counter-terrorism architecture is uniquely unfit for purpose — which is either an indictment of six years of Conservative inaction or a concession that Labour inherited a broken framework and spent another two years not fixing it.
Liberal
The US designation in 2019 was itself the first time any foreign government's military branch received a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation — it required novel legal reasoning developed over years, not weeks. The precedent shows the problem is hard, not that it's easy and Britain is uniquely paralysed.
Conservative
The US began that novel legal reasoning in 2017 and landed it by 2019. If 'this is hard' is the bar, two years is generous — not to the government, but to the IRGC.
Liberal
Two years to build primary legislation that survives judicial review, with an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation confirming the gap on the record, is not the same as two years of doing nothing — and conflating them is how you score points without engaging the actual architecture.
Proscription's real effect beyond symbolism
Conservative
The argument that proscription is largely symbolic because state actors operate through covert proxies regardless has real force — but even granting it, the legal architecture matters. It closes financial loopholes, enables prosecutions, and sends an unambiguous signal. A government that cannot get that architecture in place in two years was not governing seriously on counter-terrorism.
Liberal
On the financial and prosecutorial effects, you're right — and that's precisely why getting the definition of 'state-backed organisation' correct matters more than getting it done quickly. Broadly drawn powers have a documented history in the UK of disproportionate application against Muslim communities. The July timetable exists to write the definition narrowly enough that it functions as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
Conservative
Invoking civil liberties concerns about over-broad powers is legitimate — but it cuts against the two-year timeline, not for it. A narrowly drafted definition should have been the work of 2024, not the justification for why 2025 is acceptable.
Liberal
Parliamentary scrutiny of the definition is what makes the narrow drafting credible — and that scrutiny hasn't happened yet, which is exactly why the July timetable needs to hold rather than be replaced by a rushed bill that trades durability for optics.
Government anticipating threats vs. reacting
Conservative
Governments are trusted with extraordinary powers precisely because they are expected to anticipate threats rather than react to crises. The arson attacks on Jewish ambulances, the synagogues targeted across north London — these are not abstract policy failures. They are the human cost of a government that deprioritised a commitment it had already made.
Liberal
The commitment wasn't deprioritised — it ran into a legal wall that required primary legislation to clear. The human cost you're describing is real and the community's urgency is entirely legitimate. But the causal chain you're drawing — that a faster ban would have prevented the March 23rd attacks — requires assuming the arsonists were deterred by nothing except the absence of IRGC proscription, which isn't established.
Conservative
The deterrence argument cuts both ways: if proscription wouldn't have prevented the attacks, you've just weakened the case for the ban's urgency — which is the opposite of what the government is currently claiming.
Liberal
Proscription's value is cumulative: financial disruption, prosecutorial tools, legal signal. The government is claiming all three, not just deterrence — and those three arguments survive even if you're right that no single ban prevents any single attack.
Conservative's hardest question
The strongest challenge to this argument is that the 'gaps in the legislation' may be a genuine legal obstacle rather than an excuse — the UK's proscription framework was genuinely not designed to handle state-linked organisations, and rushing flawed legislation could create powers that are later misused or successfully challenged in court. If the legal complexity is real, then a two-year delay spent building robust legislation is defensible, and the conservative demand for instant action could produce a ban that collapses under judicial scrutiny.
Liberal's hardest question
The honest vulnerability is timing: the government knew before taking office that the IRGC ban was a manifesto commitment and that the existing legal framework had this structural flaw — which means the 'gap in the legislation' defence, while genuine, should have triggered urgent legal review in July 2024, not April 2025. That the review appears to have been accelerated by antisemitic attacks rather than proactive governance is difficult to explain away without acknowledging a real failure of political urgency.
The Divide
*Labour's ban on the IRGC splits its own coalition between those who see overdue action and those who fear the legal tools could outlast the threat.*
MAINSTREAM LABOUR
Supports the IRGC ban as overdue, necessary to protect the Jewish community, and consistent with allied nations' designations.
“This is something the Board of Deputies and communal partners have long called for.” — Phil Rosenberg
PROGRESSIVE LEFT
Supports tackling state-backed threats but warns that expansive new powers to ban organisations could suppress diaspora political activity or legitimate protest.
The Verdict
Both sides agree
Both sides agree the IRGC poses a genuine national security threat to the UK through state-directed assassination, kidnapping plots, and the facilitation of antisemitic violence — the disagreement is about political tempo and institutional competence, not whether the threat is real.
The real conflict
FACTUAL DISAGREEMENT: Conservatives argue the government should have discovered the 'legislative gap' immediately upon taking office in July 2024, given that three allied nations had already solved this problem and the commitment was made in opposition; Liberals argue the gap's complexity only became clear through independent legal review, which itself took time.
What nobody has answered
If the legal gap was genuinely complex enough to require eighteen months of careful drafting, why did the government not publicly acknowledge this constraint in real time rather than allowing the commitment to appear abandoned — and does the silence itself constitute a governance failure even if the ultimate product is defensible?
Sources

More debates