Replacing Starmer comes with a diplomatic cost – it’s not clear his challengers are ready to lead Britain
4 min read
Keir Starmer's authority has taken a heavy hit - but even those most committed to a new prime minister should pause for thought about what that means for Britain in the world.
For all his many clumsy domestic missteps, Starmer has genuinely led on Ukraine, made tough calls with Donald Trump and rebuilt relations with Europe by working intensely with Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz.
Labour in power was shocked at how quickly it was swamped by foreign affairs from Gaza and Ukraine, to Trump and Iran. No new government since the Falklands War has seen its time in office so dominated by world events. Unsurprisingly, Number 10 has constantly felt distracted, short-staffed or simply overwhelmed by the sheer volume of international calls and crises that only a prime minister can handle. Despite a huge effort in the closing months of opposition to build ties in Paris, Berlin, Brussels and of course in Washington amongst Trump Republicans, it was taken aback for the full scale and complexity of what this era asks of a leader. The truth is little can prepare a prime minister for the grittiness of the full intelligence picture and the knottiness of the trade-offs they have to make on a daily basis.
This isn't going to change. However, Starmer's challengers have no foreign policy experience, no geopolitical worldviews, no foreign affairs teams and no experience in explaining our place in the world and the tumult of our times to the public. But if they succeed that will be half their job.
Century-defining choices are closing in on Britain. Who will be handling Trump and be the line to the White House? Are we derisking from America or riding through Trump 2.0? As the Western alliance fragments and China's Axis of Authoritarians deepens what is our plan? How far are we willing to risk security for growth with Beijing? What comes next for Britain's extensive diplomatic and security role when it comes to Ukraine? If there is a peace settlement, are we ready and able to sustain the likely long deployment of British forces to Ukraine to deter Russia? Should our response to this moment be a generational pivot to Europe? If so, on what terms? Without a thought-through approach to geopolitics a prime minister risks bouncing incoherently from crisis to crisis. And quickly, the public smells it.
A prime minister doesn’t just tell a story about Britain in the world but the world to Britain. Their ability to do so can be the difference between the public feeling wind-tossed or led. But genuinely communicating on world affairs is no simple matter.
Here there is room for improvement: a failing of Starmer’s Number 10 has been to all too often let the civil service edit take precedence over politics. The Chagos deal, for example, was never properly explained because of officials’ fear of irking the US and China. Similarly the momentous decisions like refusing Trump the right to use British bases for offensive operations against Iran were not communicated politically.
Starmer's challengers have no experience in explaining our place in the world and the tumult of our times to the public. But if they succeed that will be half their job
Changes at the top are often necessary. Sometimes, if not always, they are very successful electorally. But they are not cost-free internationally. In diplomacy so much is bound up in personal connections and trust built up over time. Our allies and partners have noticed the increasingly intense game of musical chairs at Downing Street and King Charles Street - and are frustrated. I've heard from European and Gulf leaders first hand it is hardly worth investing diplomatically in a counterpart who's suddenly gone and thus hardly worth investing in Britain. This is troubling.
Diplomatic clout matters as Europe is increasingly alone sustaining Ukraine in its fight for survival against Vladimir Putin, in which he is supported by China, Iran and North Korea. Entering into Number 10 is to realise Britain is not at war but it is not quite at peace either. Decisions made over the next few years will echo down decades. As the cabinet considers what is right for Labour at home they should not forget what is happening in the world.
