The vague vision of Keir Starmer

As UK politics processes Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation, debate naturally begins on the legacy that he leaves his successor. With wars raging, and scandals seething over military funding, foreign policy will be a major issue of concern.

Keir Starmer has proved a competent manager of foreign policy. In an increasingly unstable world, his government has restored a measure of predictability to Britain’s international relationships and avoided major diplomatic missteps. Yet competence is not the same as vision. While Starmer has focused on repairing and managing Britain’s foreign relations, he has yet to articulate a clear sense of the country’s role in the world.

Andy Burnham would face the same challenge. Any bid for national leadership would require more than promises of effective management; it would demand a coherent foreign policy identity. The question confronting Burnham, as it did Starmer, is not simply how Britain should respond to global events, but what kind of international actor it wants to be. Starmer leaves this question unanswered.

Despite this failure to develop a clear foreign policy narrative, Starmer has been a safe pair of hands. He has delivered several notable foreign policy successes. Within weeks of entering office, he had re-established Britain’s presence on the international stage, attending the NATO summit in Washington and hosting European leaders at Blenheim Palace.

His most significant achievements were a series of trade agreements with the United States, the European Union and India. After years of promises about post-Brexit trade deals from Johnson, Truss and Sunak, these deals represented tangible economic and diplomatic gains.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 represented a drastically more difficult test. No previous UK PM has developed an effective strategy for dealing with Trump. Facing the announcement of a swathe of new sweeping US tariffs, he balanced the need to criticise such aggressive trade policy for the domestic and international audiences, with the need to maintain constructive relations with the new administration. While publicly opposing the tariffs, he secured one of the first trade agreements with the new administration and helped shield the UK from some of the harsher measures imposed on other allies.

There were no self-inflicted disasters under Starmer’s lead

Starmer also proved willing, on occasion, to challenge Washington directly. He shied away from the robust opposition that Canada’s Mark Carney demonstrated, but he still opposed Trump’s more bizarre comments and actions. His public rebuttal of comments by Trump and Vice President Vance on free speech in Britain demonstrated a readiness to push back when UK interests were at stake. Following the public dressing-down Ukraine’s Zelenksky received, Starmer handled his grilling in the Oval Office well. At the same time, he worked closely with European partners to coordinate responses to crises in the Middle East and the Trump administration’s more confrontational foreign policy. He has clearly paid the price for this opposition, earning Trump’s ire as “not a Winston Churchill” on several occasions. 

These were genuine achievements. In addition to these achievements, he was a safe man at the tiller. There were no self-inflicted disasters under Starmer’s lead. But they were largely reactive — demonstrating competence in managing events rather than a coherent vision for Britain’s role in the world. In each case, Starmer managed the UK response sensibly and safely. Yet in none of them did we see Starmer shape the response around a grander narrative. 

Vision, what vision?

Tony Blair saw Britain as the bridge between Europe and the United States, making his support for Washington’s War on Terror a predictable extension of that worldview. Boris Johnson’s “Global Britain” was often vague, but it at least provided a framework that connected initiatives such as AUKUS and a renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific.

Starmer’s closest equivalent was his repeated defence of the “rules-based international order”. Yet this was more a statement of principle than a strategic vision. It indicated what Britain was defending, not what Britain was trying to achieve. However, Starmer’s references in this direction lacked a clear sense of what he understood by the term, and how this order could be strengthened or reinvigorated. 

In an international arena where several world leaders actively challenge both the rules and the order, this lack of clarity in Starmer’s response meant that any attempt to consider this a foreign policy vision falls flat. 

Starmer’s allies may argue that this ambiguity was in itself a strategic choice. In an increasingly unpredictable world, they could argue it was a pragmatic response. The first problem with this argument is that it is based on a lack of evidence rather than its presence. 

Even strategic flexibility requires a narrative. Without one, foreign policy risks becoming a series of responses to events, actions on a “to-do” list rather than a coherent effort to shape the approach. 

Burnham’s burden

For Andy Burnham, the central foreign policy challenge would be precisely the one that Starmer never fully resolved: defining Britain’s role in the world. Competent crisis management is necessary, but it can never be enough. A prime minister has to explain what Britain’s foreign policy is trying to achieve and why. Without this, Starmer’s foreign policy resembles more of a stop-gap than a strategy. 

Burnham’s political identity could offer the potential foundations of such a vision. Throughout his time as Mayor of Manchester, he has emphasised economic growth and regional development. Rather than treating foreign policy and domestic priorities as separate, he can frame foreign policy as a tool for delivering prosperity at home. International trade and investment could become more dominant themes in a Burnham foreign policy.

This approach would need to also provide a basis for navigating an increasingly fragmented international system. Burnham should prioritise continuing and deeper cooperation with like-minded partners such as the EU and Canada. Focusing on cooperation amongst stability seeking allies can build on some of Starmer’s successes. In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, Britain’s role could be defined not by responding to Donald Trump’s latest announcement, but by how we choose to not dance to Trump’s tune. 

At the same time, Burnham’s emphasis on economic development could develop opportunities to engage with a Trump administration that continues to be antagonised by Labour. A focus on investment and energy security could provide some common ground for Burnham’s initial conversations with Trump.

There is increasing pressure to allow further North Sea oil exploration in some way, and floating this idea could help frame Burnham in contrast to his predecessor and align with Washington’s priorities. Trump accused Starmer of failing on immigration and energy. With immigration down 75 per cent under Starmer, reality, unsurprisingly, doesn’t match Trump’s comments. However, showing receptiveness to Trump’s point on energy could be grounds to start the relationship on safe ground. New York mayor Zohran Mamdani surprised most commentators by showing Trump is not completely against cooperation with popular left-wing politics. 

Perhaps most importantly, Burnham would need to identify the levers of influence available to a middle power. Britain’s strength increasingly lies not in military dominance but in its soft power assets: world-leading universities, cultural institutions, creative industries and global networks. A coherent strategy for deploying these assets would give substance to a broader vision of Britain as a connector, convenor and source of innovation in an increasingly divided world. Many of these levers would also be fairly cheap and easy to pull on to the UK’s advantage.

Competence can deliver successes, but without a clear sense of purpose those successes risk appearing disconnected

However, as Starmer learned in his final months, you ignore hard power capabilities at your peril. The resignations of John Healey and Al Carns over Defence spending commitments rocked Starmer’s premiership. But they also reflected a growing perception that Britain’s military capacity has degraded to a dangerous extent. Burnham could distinguish his leadership from Starmer’s by investing further in Defence, and doing so would be a strong and positive signal to allies. 

The lesson from Starmer’s premiership is clear. Competence can deliver successes, but without a clear sense of purpose those successes risk appearing disconnected. Starmer managed several episodes of success, but Burnham will need to do more than this to look successful on the international stage. Burnham’s challenge would be to provide the narrative that Starmer never fully found. If not, he will join Starmer in being defined by a lack of foreign policy narrative — and unanswered questions.