‘Foreign policy is not a reason to keep Keir Starmer in No.10’

From Keir Starmer’s supporters we hear that, however bad things are for him, his foreign policy successes are reason enough to stick with him as prime minister. We will likely hear that again over the next few days. 

The argument is simple. Starmer’s personal poll ratings may well be terrible; the Party’s similarly dire; local and devolved elections are catastrophically bad; and Labour’s not-quite-two years in government have seen a string of unforced errors, policy reversals, and more ministerial and official departures than you would expect in such a short time. Yes, they say, none of this is great. And any Party faced with a leader in this situation would be asking itself whether someone, anyone, could do better.

But…as unprepared and underwhelming as Starmer has evidently been across domestic policy, his foreign policy hasn’t been disastrously bad, has it? On Iran, in particular, the argument is made that Starmer made a bold decision to insert a degree of distance between the UK and Trump’s war. And, in any case, in a perilous moment of global instability, isn’t it best to stick with the devil you know?

READ MORE:‘The grass may look greener on the other side, but it rarely is’

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t withstand much scrutiny.

The best counter argument to all this, the reason why Starmer’s foreign policy shouldn’t save him, is that like much else in Starmer’s premiership, his foreign policy isn’t really his own at all. The Iran decision, if we’re to believe reporting, was a genuinely collective Cabinet decision. Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband were both identified as persuasive advocates for distance from Trump. 

True enough, these voices might not have carried a Cabinet led by a different prime minister – one more in command of his peers and exhibiting Blair levels of belief in the necessity of co-belligerence as the one true interpretation of the doctrine of the ‘special relationship’. But it’s very hard to imagine the Labour Party membership electing such a figure to replace Starmer. I would go so far as to say that no plausible successor would fail to recognise either the strategic or the domestic political reasons why any further support for Trump’s war would be a bad idea.

So, you can agree with the Iran decision, without viewing it as something so exceptional – something so unique to Starmer himself – that it outweighs all his negatives and militates against what would otherwise be a compelling case for changing leader.

Although some have tried, I don’t think it is persuasive to argue that any of Starmer’s most probable successors would be likely to handle foreign affairs less steadily than him. They exaggerate Starmer’s successes and undersell his rivals’ merits. This isn’t just about having the aptitude to get on top of the relevant briefs, or the personal skills to engage in leader-to-leader diplomacy. It is also about having the international credibility that comes from being seen as a leader whose premiership isn’t essentially doomed.

A new leader, with a clean slate and clear intent, able to provide strong direction to the government, and to bring Labour MPs with them, would be perceived more positively by foreign counterparts. You could say that about Starmer immediately after his general election win. You could not say it today. 

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

Having to change leader so soon is clearly not ideal. If Starmer hadn’t failed, we wouldn’t need to do it. But faced with a situation where Starmer is already a de facto lame duck, it is the responsible decision to replace him. That isn’t the Labour Party turning in on itself; it is the Party rebooting its leadership to provide the country with the stable premiership it needs. 

And remember, whenever you hear anyone denigrating the foreign policy expertise of likely successors, that Starmer didn’t enter government with stronger credentials. To his credit, he seemed to recognise this and recruited Jonathan Powell as his National Security Adviser. Starmer’s successor would also be able to draw on a range of expertise from within and beyond Whitehall – whether or not they kept Powell himself. We would learn very quickly just how integral Starmer himself was to his government’s foreign policy.

Overall, it is simply very hard to argue that a leader in Starmer’s current state of shrunken authority is remotely well placed to actively lead the next phase of Labour government foreign policy, to energise it with a clear sense of vision – as, for example, Ed Miliband unquestionably has in his portfolio. 

Labour needs a reset. In foreign, as in domestic policy, the attributes of a successful prime minister include credible tenure in post.  Why would foreign governments make concessions to, or trust commitments from, a leader widely seen to be on borrowed time?

Foreign policy will not, and should not, save Starmer’s premiership. The balance of forces within his Cabinet already reflect this, so Starmer should declare a departure date and accept his transition to caretaker PM status. The timing of such an announcement would be inherently political: a managed process would allow time for Andy Burnham to try to return to Parliament; a messier outcome would not. However it is done, searching for a new leader is the smarter foreign policy move than labouring under the dead weight of Starmer’s endgame. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].