Every Prime Minister has their own personality and approach to work. Each has a different leadership style that influences how things are done and the outcomes achieved. Herbert Asquith put it well when he said that being Prime Minister is “about what the Prime Minister chooses to do and how he or she can achieve it”.
There aren’t many clues to go on when it comes to exploring why Keir Starmer will become Britain’s prime minister. When asked directly on a recent podcast, he declared himself to be “an inclusive and determined prime minister who looks after all of our people.” This can only go so far, as it’s hard to imagine anyone disagreeing (except perhaps Nigel Farage). But by examining what we do know, we can at least begin to put the puzzle together.
Starmer’s personality and approach have been described as “meticulous, professional, good at detail but lacking in style” and he may very well be what the late MP and historian David Marquand called a “pragmatic operator”. Starmer does not have the visionary appeal or eloquent speeches of Tony Blair or Harold Wilson, but he is not simply a “machine politician”.
Starmer comes across as a quiet, experienced man who speaks of values and identifies as a socialist (though the public is not sure whether he is a socialist or not, or whether that is a good or bad thing). He can rightly claim to come from a more authentically working-class background than many of his predecessors.
We know that Starmer only became an MP in 2015, so at 52 he is a relatively late entrant into politics. He has spent his entire political career in opposition. His predecessors, going all the way back to Theresa May, came to the role with considerable experience as government ministers (though some might point out that this didn’t help matters much).
But Starmer’s parliamentary career has been more tumultuous than most: He was heavily involved in Brexit, then led the party through the pandemic. As Leader of the Opposition, he saw two prime ministers sacked in quick succession (and, with his methodical, lawyerly approach, played a major role in at least one of them being fired), and now he’s sacked a third.
A man on a mission
Importantly, Starmer has effectively led a large government department – his five years as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) means, quite unusually, he comes to No 10 as an experienced leader who has led national institutions since before the start of his political career.
Starmer’s experience as Deputy Prime Minister suggests he will be results-oriented. We can expect a focus on solving problems, finding solutions and getting things done. We can also expect a focus on results and an end to the politicisation and bureaucratic battles that characterised the previous government.
It has been suggested that Starmer’s government would be a mission-led government organised around a set of guiding, long-term missions aimed at delivering certainty and lasting change. This idea is not new or particularly radical, but it may seem so after the turmoil and short-termism of recent years.
How and how quickly decisions are taken – or not taken – will be key tests. Starmer’s indecisiveness on net zero plans may determine how things go. Plans and attention to detail can easily become synonymous with delay and indecision.
He has hinted at being a consultative leader — “The best decisions I’ve made in my life have been the ones that were put out there and stood up to scrutiny. The worst have been the ones where nobody said ‘boo.'” But, as his deputy president Angela Rayner has pointed out, his tendency to “undershare information” may mean he concentrates decision-making in a few trusted allies.
Mysterious man
A Starmer government would likely be given a mandate to make changes, especially if it had a majority in Parliament. For a self-described socialist and progressive, change would be inevitable. But how extreme will he be? “He can be very impressive, but he never crosses the line,” said one former Labour minister. “Even when he was a radical lawyer, he was a conventional lawyer.”
Where exactly Starmer stands remains a mystery, or rather “a mystery wrapped in a mystery wrapped in something beige that makes sense”, as one supporter explained: “One of Keir’s greatest strengths is that he has never belonged to or been tied to any particular faction of the Labour party.”
But a truism in political leadership is that what begins as a strength ends as a weakness. Many cracks within the Labour party are already visible, from child poverty to Gaza. Other issues are boiling over. Starmer’s ability to stay out of the fight will not last long, and intrigue and challenges are likely (especially if that means a majority of unemployed MPs).
Here Starmer faces perhaps another classic dilemma for a Labour party and a Labour prime minister – what David Marquand has called “the progressivist dilemma”: how far can and will he push for change without undermining the support of the broad coalition that put him in office. His approach so far has been cautious, backed by a disciplined shadow cabinet, but a majority in favour could change things.
But other leaders have made big changes quietly – for example, Theresa May, who pushed through net zero legislation so quietly that “no one noticed the Conservative party’s greatest legacy”.
But to revisit Asquith’s warning, being prime minister is about what a leader can do. Events have thrown governments off course and many governments have been overwhelmed by crises. Starmer would do well to heed boxer Mike Tyson’s warning that “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.
With Starmer’s victory, expectations are hanging heavy. But trust in all politicians is low and bruised. At home, there are pressing issues mounting – immigration, public service funding, the NHS. Abroad, as one Labour adviser warned, there is a “stormy world” – from Gaza and Ukraine to the US presidential election. The true test of Starmer’s character will be when his methodical approach meets a world in chaos.
Mark Benister Associate Professor of Political Science, Lincoln University.
Ben Worthy Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of London.
This article was originally published conversation.
