Asked in which Hogwarts House the Harry Potter sorting hat should place Keir Starmer, the British public sorted him into Hufflepuff. Hufflepuff is home to those with a kind demeanour, who value patience and loyalty, but are not necessarily courageous, ambitious, or exceptionally intelligent or assertive. Starmer is trying to change this overriding public perception by taking a prominent role in the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations.
Starmer’s recent foreign policy successes are reminiscent of Thatcher’s, who was the least popular Prime Minister in polling history at the start of 1982 but transformed public opinion due to the British victory in the Falklands War which allowed her to paint herself as a dominant war leader. However, the impact of Starmer’s negotiating endeavour to rally patriotism and mass public support has been marginal compared to that of Thatcher.
This could be down to a lack of charisma or his particular diplomatic style as, compared to the assertive or lively personalities of other world leaders on the negotiating stage such as Trump, Zelensky, Putin or even Macron, Starmer certainly pales in comparison.
If we think back to July 2024, the Labour landslide in the UK general Election was not exactly due to Starmer’s popularity and charisma, but due to Rishi Sunak’s abysmally low favourability ratings (in July 2024 Sunak was rated -36 in net competence by public opinion polls while Starmer was rated 0) and a strong desire for change after 14 years of Conservative Government.
Nonetheless, perhaps Starmer’s “Hufflepuff” qualities are exactly what is needed and are particularly valuable in high-stakes negotiation scenarios. There is no doubt about Starmer’s competence, extensive legal background and political experience. As acknowledged by Jonathan Lemire “being forgettable has proved attractive” and, classically, Max Weber said “Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards… it is hard work and unending” – politics is difficult and complex and requires sensibility, calm and steadiness. Such qualities are even more necessary when it regards delicate negotiations and balancing interests in international conflicts.
There have certainly been some positive outcomes of Starmer’s actions and strategies in these peace negotiations. Pairing with Macron, the UK and France are heading the “Coalition of the Willing” which will operate on the premise of Starmer’s 4 Point Plan which includes ensuring Europe-led security guarantees for Ukraine, instituting peacekeeping forces in Ukraine after a peace deal is signed, helping to enhance Ukraine’s military capacity in anticipation of potential future Russian invasions, and ensuring Ukraine is included in all negotiations. This Coalition consists of 31 nations and was formed after the London Summit on 2 March, spearheaded by Starmer.
This constructive and substantive work has also improved UK relations with EU member states after post-Brexit tensions. These negotiations have necessitated closer collaboration and a united front with the EU, reinforcing European cohesion in response to global security challenges. As Latvian Speaker of Parliament, Daiga Mierina, aptly stated, “Europe’s security is inseparable from Ukraine’s security.”
The UK appears to have reaffirmed its strategic influence within Europe over the course of these negotiations, leveraging a united European stance on Ukraine in contrast to the US’s growing complacency. Starmer has helped to position the UK as a pivotal actor in shaping European security policy, reinforcing key non-negotiable conditions in articulating Europe’s collective ideals and pragmatic interests. Not only have these strengthened alliances, but they have also reaffirmed Europe’s centrality in the ongoing peace process.
However, Starmer has had to balance warm relations with both the US and Europe, maintaining a firm stance on the UK’s strategic red lines or “walkaway price” in these negotiations while avoiding alienation from Washington.
Trump has generally made positive remarks about Starmer, such as “we like each other, frankly, and we like each other’s country” and remarking on his “beautiful” accent after Starmer’s first visit to the White House on 27 February. While Trump also called him a “tough negotiator,” the general outcome signals an attempt to maintain diplomatic rapport as Trump even rescinded previous harsh comments that he had made about Zelensky, such as calling him a “dictator.”
This highlights the clear shift in US foreign policy interests that has been made evident by these negotiations: the increasing friction and erosion in Transatlantic relations. What was once a shared commitment to Ukraine has been overshadowed by hostile rhetoric, particularly from US VP JD Vance, diplomatic missteps from US leaders and media, and policy U-turns regarding the Ukraine peace process.
On balance, the UK, under Starmer’s leadership, appears to have navigated the changing geopolitical landscape adeptly, potentially even strengthening its relative power within Europe. So perhaps Starmer does deserve greater recognition for this. As tensions between the US and EU member states escalate, could the UK emerge as a key mediator or liaison between these historically close allies? With figures like Trump and Vance openly criticising Europe’s leadership, accusing EU member states of backsliding in democracy and free speech, and warning of “civilisational suicide” due to the EU’s open-border policies, Starmer has a unique opportunity to bridge these fractures. His role could become one of the UK’s most significant foreign policy assets in both shaping the Ukraine peace negotiations and securing Europe’s strategic autonomy.
“UK Government hosts EPC Summit at Blenheim Palace (53865075710)” by Number 10 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.